vtc: README files

Author: vertiond

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
-Contributing to Bitcoin Core
+Contributing to Vertcoin Core
 ============================
 
-The Bitcoin Core project operates an open contributor model where anyone is
+The Vertcoin Core project operates an open contributor model where anyone is
 welcome to contribute towards development in the form of peer review, testing
 and patches. This document explains the practical process and guidelines for
 contributing.
@@ -15,62 +15,16 @@ merging pull requests, as well as a "lead maintainer" who is responsible for the
 release cycle as well as overall merging, moderation and appointment of
 maintainers.
 
-Getting Started
----------------
-
-New contributors are very welcome and needed.
-
-Reviewing and testing is highly valued and the most effective way you can contribute
-as a new contributor. It also will teach you much more about the code and
-process than opening pull requests. Please refer to the [peer review](#peer-review)
-section below.
-
-Before you start contributing, familiarize yourself with the Bitcoin Core build
-system and tests. Refer to the documentation in the repository on how to build
-Bitcoin Core and how to run the unit tests, functional tests, and fuzz tests.
-
-There are many open issues of varying difficulty waiting to be fixed.
-If you're looking for somewhere to start contributing, check out the
-[good first issue](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22good+first+issue%22)
-list or changes that are
-[up for grabs](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=label%3A%22Up+for+grabs%22).
-Some of them might no longer be applicable. So if you are interested, but
-unsure, you might want to leave a comment on the issue first.
-
-You may also participate in the weekly
-[Bitcoin Core PR Review Club](https://bitcoincore.reviews/) meeting.
-
-### Good First Issue Label
-
-The purpose of the `good first issue` label is to highlight which issues are
-suitable for a new contributor without a deep understanding of the codebase.
-
-However, good first issues can be solved by anyone. If they remain unsolved
-for a longer time, a frequent contributor might address them.
-
-You do not need to request permission to start working on an issue. However,
-you are encouraged to leave a comment if you are planning to work on it. This
-will help other contributors monitor which issues are actively being addressed
-and is also an effective way to request assistance if and when you need it.
-
 Communication Channels
 ----------------------
 
-Most communication about Bitcoin Core development happens on IRC, in the
-`#bitcoin-core-dev` channel on Libera Chat. The easiest way to participate on IRC is
-with the web client, [web.libera.chat](https://web.libera.chat/#bitcoin-core-dev). Chat
-history logs can be found
-on [http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/](http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/)
-and [http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/](http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/).
+Most communication about Vertcoin Core development happens onthe #development channel
+on [Discord](https://discord.gg/vertcoin).
 
-Discussion about codebase improvements happens in GitHub issues and pull
-requests.
-
-The developer
-[mailing list](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev)
-should be used to discuss complicated or controversial consensus or P2P protocol changes before working on
-a patch set.
+Issues List
+--------------------
 
+Open issues can be found on github in the [issues list](https://github.com/vertcoin-project/vertcoin-core/issues).
 
 Contributor Workflow
 --------------------
@@ -136,51 +90,6 @@ about Git.
   - Push changes to your fork
   - Create pull request
 
-### Creating the Pull Request
-
-The title of the pull request should be prefixed by the component or area that
-the pull request affects. Valid areas as:
-
-  - `consensus` for changes to consensus critical code
-  - `doc` for changes to the documentation
-  - `qt` or `gui` for changes to bitcoin-qt
-  - `log` for changes to log messages
-  - `mining` for changes to the mining code
-  - `net` or `p2p` for changes to the peer-to-peer network code
-  - `refactor` for structural changes that do not change behavior
-  - `rpc`, `rest` or `zmq` for changes to the RPC, REST or ZMQ APIs
-  - `script` for changes to the scripts and tools
-  - `test`, `qa` or `ci` for changes to the unit tests, QA tests or CI code
-  - `util` or `lib` for changes to the utils or libraries
-  - `wallet` for changes to the wallet code
-  - `build` for changes to the GNU Autotools or reproducible builds
-
-Examples:
-
-    consensus: Add new opcode for BIP-XXXX OP_CHECKAWESOMESIG
-    net: Automatically create onion service, listen on Tor
-    qt: Add feed bump button
-    log: Fix typo in log message
-
-The body of the pull request should contain sufficient description of *what* the
-patch does, and even more importantly, *why*, with justification and reasoning.
-You should include references to any discussions (for example, other issues or
-mailing list discussions).
-
-The description for a new pull request should not contain any `@` mentions. The
-PR description will be included in the commit message when the PR is merged and
-any users mentioned in the description will be annoyingly notified each time a
-fork of Bitcoin Core copies the merge. Instead, make any username mentions in a
-subsequent comment to the PR.
-
-### Translation changes
-
-Note that translations should not be submitted as pull requests. Please see
-[Translation Process](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/translation_process.md)
-for more information on helping with translations.
-
-### Work in Progress Changes and Requests for Comments
-
 If a pull request is not to be considered for merging (yet), please
 prefix the title with [WIP] or use [Tasks Lists](https://help.github.com/articles/basic-writing-and-formatting-syntax/#task-lists)
 in the body of the pull request to indicate tasks are pending.
@@ -223,209 +132,10 @@ the respective change set.
 The length of time required for peer review is unpredictable and will vary from
 pull request to pull request.
 
-### Rebasing Changes
-
-When a pull request conflicts with the target branch, you may be asked to rebase it on top of the current target branch.
-The `git rebase` command will take care of rebuilding your commits on top of the new base.
-
-This project aims to have a clean git history, where code changes are only made in non-merge commits. This simplifies
-auditability because merge commits can be assumed to not contain arbitrary code changes. Merge commits should be signed,
-and the resulting git tree hash must be deterministic and reproducible. The script in
-[/contrib/verify-commits](/contrib/verify-commits) checks that.
-
-After a rebase, reviewers are encouraged to sign off on the force push. This should be relatively straightforward with
-the `git range-diff` tool explained in the [productivity
-notes](/doc/productivity.md#diff-the-diffs-with-git-range-diff). To avoid needless review churn, maintainers will
-generally merge pull requests that received the most review attention first.
-
-Pull Request Philosophy
------------------------
-
-Patchsets should always be focused. For example, a pull request could add a
-feature, fix a bug, or refactor code; but not a mixture. Please also avoid super
-pull requests which attempt to do too much, are overly large, or overly complex
-as this makes review difficult.
-
-
-### Features
-
-When adding a new feature, thought must be given to the long term technical debt
-and maintenance that feature may require after inclusion. Before proposing a new
-feature that will require maintenance, please consider if you are willing to
-maintain it (including bug fixing). If features get orphaned with no maintainer
-in the future, they may be removed by the Repository Maintainer.
-
-
-### Refactoring
-
-Refactoring is a necessary part of any software project's evolution. The
-following guidelines cover refactoring pull requests for the project.
-
-There are three categories of refactoring: code-only moves, code style fixes, and
-code refactoring. In general, refactoring pull requests should not mix these
-three kinds of activities in order to make refactoring pull requests easy to
-review and uncontroversial. In all cases, refactoring PRs must not change the
-behaviour of code within the pull request (bugs must be preserved as is).
-
-Project maintainers aim for a quick turnaround on refactoring pull requests, so
-where possible keep them short, uncomplex and easy to verify.
-
-Pull requests that refactor the code should not be made by new contributors. It
-requires a certain level of experience to know where the code belongs to and to
-understand the full ramification (including rebase effort of open pull requests).
-
-Trivial pull requests or pull requests that refactor the code with no clear
-benefits may be immediately closed by the maintainers to reduce unnecessary
-workload on reviewing.
-
-
-"Decision Making" Process
--------------------------
-
-The following applies to code changes to the Bitcoin Core project (and related
-projects such as libsecp256k1), and is not to be confused with overall Bitcoin
-Network Protocol consensus changes.
-
-Whether a pull request is merged into Bitcoin Core rests with the project merge
-maintainers and ultimately the project lead.
-
-Maintainers will take into consideration if a patch is in line with the general
-principles of the project; meets the minimum standards for inclusion; and will
-judge the general consensus of contributors.
-
-In general, all pull requests must:
-
-  - Have a clear use case, fix a demonstrable bug or serve the greater good of
-    the project (for example refactoring for modularisation);
-  - Be well peer-reviewed;
-  - Have unit tests, functional tests, and fuzz tests, where appropriate;
-  - Follow code style guidelines ([C++](doc/developer-notes.md), [functional tests](test/functional/README.md));
-  - Not break the existing test suite;
-  - Where bugs are fixed, where possible, there should be unit tests
-    demonstrating the bug and also proving the fix. This helps prevent regression.
-  - Change relevant comments and documentation when behaviour of code changes.
-
-Patches that change Bitcoin consensus rules are considerably more involved than
-normal because they affect the entire ecosystem and so must be preceded by
-extensive mailing list discussions and have a numbered BIP. While each case will
-be different, one should be prepared to expend more time and effort than for
-other kinds of patches because of increased peer review and consensus building
-requirements.
-
-
-### Peer Review
-
-Anyone may participate in peer review which is expressed by comments in the pull
-request. Typically reviewers will review the code for obvious errors, as well as
-test out the patch set and opine on the technical merits of the patch. Project
-maintainers take into account the peer review when determining if there is
-consensus to merge a pull request (remember that discussions may have been
-spread out over GitHub, mailing list and IRC discussions).
-
-#### Conceptual Review
-
-A review can be a conceptual review, where the reviewer leaves a comment
- * `Concept (N)ACK`, meaning "I do (not) agree with the general goal of this pull
-   request",
- * `Approach (N)ACK`, meaning `Concept ACK`, but "I do (not) agree with the
-   approach of this change".
-
-A `NACK` needs to include a rationale why the change is not worthwhile.
-NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be disregarded.
-
-#### Code Review
-
-After conceptual agreement on the change, code review can be provided. A review
-begins with `ACK BRANCH_COMMIT`, where `BRANCH_COMMIT` is the top of the PR
-branch, followed by a description of how the reviewer did the review. The
-following language is used within pull request comments:
-
-  - "I have tested the code", involving change-specific manual testing in
-    addition to running the unit, functional, or fuzz tests, and in case it is
-    not obvious how the manual testing was done, it should be described;
-  - "I have not tested the code, but I have reviewed it and it looks
-    OK, I agree it can be merged";
-  - A "nit" refers to a trivial, often non-blocking issue.
-
-Project maintainers reserve the right to weigh the opinions of peer reviewers
-using common sense judgement and may also weigh based on merit. Reviewers that
-have demonstrated a deeper commitment and understanding of the project over time
-or who have clear domain expertise may naturally have more weight, as one would
-expect in all walks of life.
-
-Where a patch set affects consensus-critical code, the bar will be much
-higher in terms of discussion and peer review requirements, keeping in mind that
-mistakes could be very costly to the wider community. This includes refactoring
-of consensus-critical code.
-
-Where a patch set proposes to change the Bitcoin consensus, it must have been
-discussed extensively on the mailing list and IRC, be accompanied by a widely
-discussed BIP and have a generally widely perceived technical consensus of being
-a worthwhile change based on the judgement of the maintainers.
-
-### Finding Reviewers
-
-As most reviewers are themselves developers with their own projects, the review
-process can be quite lengthy, and some amount of patience is required. If you find
-that you've been waiting for a pull request to be given attention for several
-months, there may be a number of reasons for this, some of which you can do something
-about:
-
-  - It may be because of a feature freeze due to an upcoming release. During this time,
-    only bug fixes are taken into consideration. If your pull request is a new feature,
-    it will not be prioritized until after the release. Wait for the release.
-  - It may be because the changes you are suggesting do not appeal to people. Rather than
-    nits and critique, which require effort and means they care enough to spend time on your
-    contribution, thundering silence is a good sign of widespread (mild) dislike of a given change
-    (because people don't assume *others* won't actually like the proposal). Don't take
-    that personally, though! Instead, take another critical look at what you are suggesting
-    and see if it: changes too much, is too broad, doesn't adhere to the
-    [developer notes](doc/developer-notes.md), is dangerous or insecure, is messily written, etc.
-    Identify and address any of the issues you find. Then ask e.g. on IRC if someone could give
-    their opinion on the concept itself.
-  - It may be because your code is too complex for all but a few people, and those people
-    may not have realized your pull request even exists. A great way to find people who
-    are qualified and care about the code you are touching is the
-    [Git Blame feature](https://help.github.com/articles/tracing-changes-in-a-file/). Simply
-    look up who last modified the code you are changing and see if you can find
-    them and give them a nudge. Don't be incessant about the nudging, though.
-  - Finally, if all else fails, ask on IRC or elsewhere for someone to give your pull request
-    a look. If you think you've been waiting for an unreasonably long time (say,
-    more than a month) for no particular reason (a few lines changed, etc.),
-    this is totally fine. Try to return the favor when someone else is asking
-    for feedback on their code, and the universe balances out.
-  - Remember that the best thing you can do while waiting is give review to others!
-
-
-Backporting
------------
-
-Security and bug fixes can be backported from `master` to release
-branches.
-If the backport is non-trivial, it may be appropriate to open an
-additional PR to backport the change, but only after the original PR
-has been merged.
-Otherwise, backports will be done in batches and
-the maintainers will use the proper `Needs backport (...)` labels
-when needed (the original author does not need to worry about it).
-
-A backport should contain the following metadata in the commit body:
-
-```
-Github-Pull: #<PR number>
-Rebased-From: <commit hash of the original commit>
-```
-
-Have a look at [an example backport PR](
-https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16189).
-
-Also see the [backport.py script](
-https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools#backport).
-
 Release Policy
 --------------
 
-The project leader is the release manager for each Bitcoin Core release.
+The project leader is the release manager for each Vertcoin Core release.
 
 Copyright
 ---------

COPYING

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ The MIT License (MIT)
 
 Copyright (c) 2009-2021 The Bitcoin Core developers
 Copyright (c) 2009-2021 Bitcoin Developers
+Copyright (c) 2011-2022 The Vertcoin Core developers
 
 Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
 of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal