Chapter 9 Collaboration Guide
Having contributors will improve your package, and if you onboard some of them as package authors with write permissions to the repo, your package will be more sustainably developed.
This chapter contains our guidance for collaboration, in a section about making your repo contribution- and collaboration-friendly by infrastructure (code of conduct, contribution guidelines, issue labels); and a section about how to collaborate with new contributors, in particular in the context of the rOpenSci’s “ropensci” GitHub organization.
9.1 Make your repo contribution and collaboration friendly
9.1.1 Code of conduct
We require that you use a code of conduct such as the Contributor Covenant in developing your package. You should document your code of conduct in a
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file in the package root directory, and link to this file from the
usethis::use_code_of_conduct() will add the Contributor Covenant template to your package. Use
usethis > 1.3.1.
9.1.2 Contributing guide
We have templates for issue, pull request and contributing guidelines that you can find in this GitHub repository. There is also a helper function to insert them into your repository.
You can tweak them a bit depending on your workflow and package. For example, make sure contributors have instructions in CONTRIBUTING.md for running local tests if not trivial. CONTRIBUTING.md can also contain some details about how you acknowledge contributions (see this section) and the roadmap of your package (cf this example).
We encourage you to direct feedback that is not a bug report or a feature request to rOpenSci forum. Users can use the forum to ask questions about use and report their use cases, and you can subscribe to individual categories and tags to receive notifications about your package. Feel free to mention this in the docs of your package and/or the contributing guidelines/issue template. Please direct your users to tag posts with the package name.
You can use the
lintr package’s own bot, lintr-bot, via continuous integration, to get comments if a commit or PR deteriorates the code style of your package. See this link for guidance.
9.1.3 Issue labelling
You can use labels such as “help wanted” and “good first issue” to help potential collaborators, including newbies, find your repo. Cf GitHub article. You can also use the “Beginner” label. See examples of beginner issues over all ropensci repos.
9.2 Working with collaborators
9.2.1 Onboarding collaborators
There’s no general rOpenSci rule as to how you should onboard collaborators. You should increase their rights to the repo as you gain trust, and you should definitely acknowledge contributions (see this section).
You can ask a new collaborator to make PRs (see following section for assessing a PR locally, i.e. beyond CI checks) to dev/master and assess them before merging, and after a while let them push to master, although you might want to keep a system of PR reviews… even for yourself once you have team mates!
A possible model for onboarding collaborators is provided by Jim Hester in his
If your problem is recruiting collaborators, you can post an open call like Jim Hester’s on Twitter, GitHub, and as an rOpenSci package author, you can ask for help in rOpenSci slack and ask rOpenSci team for ideas for recruiting new collaborators.
9.2.2 Working with collaborators (including yourself)
Keep master shippable as much as possible
Branches are cheap. Use them extensively when developing features, testing out new ideas, fixing problems.
One particular aspect of working with collaborators is reviewing pull requests. Even if not adopting gitflow it might make sense for repo collaborators to make PRs and have them reviewed, and in general PRs by external developers will need to be assessed Sometimes you’ll be fine just reading the changes and trusting Continuous integration. Sometimes you’ll need more exploration and even extension of the PR in which case we recommend reading “Explore and extend a pull request” in happygitwithr.com.
9.2.3 Be generous with attributions
If someone contributes to your repository consider adding them in DESCRIPTION, as contributor (“ctb”) for small contributions, author (“aut”) for bigger contributions. Traditionally when citing a package in a scientific publication only “aut” authors are listed, not “ctb” contributors; and on
pkgdown websites only “aut” names are listed on the homepage, all authors being listed on the authors/ page.
At a minimum consider adding the name of contributors near the feature/bug fix line in NEWS.md.
We recommend your being generous with such acknowledgements, because it is a nice thing to do and because it will make folks more likely to contribute again to your package or other repos of the organization.
As a reminder from our packaging guidelines if your package was reviewed and you feel that your reviewers have made a substantial contribution to the development of your package, you may list them in the
[email protected] field with a Reviewer contributor type (
"rev"), like so:
person("Bea", "Hernández", role = "rev", comment = "Bea reviewed the package for ropensci, see <https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/116>"),
Only include reviewers after asking for their consent. Read more in this blog post “Thanking Your Reviewers: Gratitude through Semantic Metadata”. Note that ‘rev’ will raise a CRAN NOTE unless the package is built using R v3.5. Make sure you use
roxygen2’s latest CRAN version.
Please do not list editors as contributors. Your participation in and contribution to rOpenSci is thanks enough!
9.2.4 Welcoming collaborators to rOpenSci
get invited to rOpenSci’s “ropensci” GitHub organization (instead of being outside collaborators)
get invited to rOpenSci Slack workspace.