diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'third_party/git/Documentation/SubmittingPatches')
| -rw-r--r-- | third_party/git/Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 575 |
1 files changed, 575 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/third_party/git/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/third_party/git/Documentation/SubmittingPatches new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..4515cab5193d --- /dev/null +++ b/third_party/git/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -0,0 +1,575 @@ +Submitting Patches +================== + +== Guidelines + +Here are some guidelines for people who want to contribute their code +to this software. + +[[base-branch]] +=== Decide what to base your work on. + +In general, always base your work on the oldest branch that your +change is relevant to. + +* A bugfix should be based on `maint` in general. If the bug is not + present in `maint`, base it on `master`. For a bug that's not yet + in `master`, find the topic that introduces the regression, and + base your work on the tip of the topic. + +* A new feature should be based on `master` in general. If the new + feature depends on a topic that is in `pu`, but not in `master`, + base your work on the tip of that topic. + +* Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in `master` should + be based on the tip of that topic. If the topic has not been merged + to `next`, it's alright to add a note to squash minor corrections + into the series. + +* In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics + not in `master`, start working on `next` or `pu` privately and send + out patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to + wait until some of the dependent topics graduate to `master`, and + rebase your work. + +* Some parts of the system have dedicated maintainers with their own + repositories (see the section "Subsystems" below). Changes to + these parts should be based on their trees. + +To find the tip of a topic branch, run `git log --first-parent +master..pu` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this +commit is the tip of the topic branch. + +[[separate-commits]] +=== Make separate commits for logically separate changes. + +Unless your patch is really trivial, you should not be sending +out a patch that was generated between your working tree and +your commit head. Instead, always make a commit with complete +commit message and generate a series of patches from your +repository. It is a good discipline. + +Give an explanation for the change(s) that is detailed enough so +that people can judge if it is good thing to do, without reading +the actual patch text to determine how well the code does what +the explanation promises to do. + +If your description starts to get too long, that's a sign that you +probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces. +That being said, patches which plainly describe the things that +help reviewers check the patch, and future maintainers understand +the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarize +the point in the subject well, and describe the motivation for the +change, the approach taken by the change, and if relevant how this +differs substantially from the prior version, are all good things +to have. + +Make sure that you have tests for the bug you are fixing. See +`t/README` for guidance. + +[[tests]] +When adding a new feature, make sure that you have new tests to show +the feature triggers the new behavior when it should, and to show the +feature does not trigger when it shouldn't. After any code change, make +sure that the entire test suite passes. + +If you have an account at GitHub (and you can get one for free to work +on open source projects), you can use their Travis CI integration to +test your changes on Linux, Mac (and hopefully soon Windows). See +GitHub-Travis CI hints section for details. + +Do not forget to update the documentation to describe the updated +behavior and make sure that the resulting documentation set formats +well (try the Documentation/doc-diff script). + +We currently have a liberal mixture of US and UK English norms for +spelling and grammar, which is somewhat unfortunate. A huge patch that +touches the files all over the place only to correct the inconsistency +is not welcome, though. Potential clashes with other changes that can +result from such a patch are not worth it. We prefer to gradually +reconcile the inconsistencies in favor of US English, with small and +easily digestible patches, as a side effect of doing some other real +work in the vicinity (e.g. rewriting a paragraph for clarity, while +turning en_UK spelling to en_US). Obvious typographical fixes are much +more welcomed ("teh -> "the"), preferably submitted as independent +patches separate from other documentation changes. + +[[whitespace-check]] +Oh, another thing. We are picky about whitespaces. Make sure your +changes do not trigger errors with the sample pre-commit hook shipped +in `templates/hooks--pre-commit`. To help ensure this does not happen, +run `git diff --check` on your changes before you commit. + +[[describe-changes]] +=== Describe your changes well. + +The first line of the commit message should be a short description (50 +characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION in linkgit:git-commit[1]), +and should skip the full stop. It is also conventional in most cases to +prefix the first line with "area: " where the area is a filename or +identifier for the general area of the code being modified, e.g. + +* doc: clarify distinction between sign-off and pgp-signing +* githooks.txt: improve the intro section + +If in doubt which identifier to use, run `git log --no-merges` on the +files you are modifying to see the current conventions. + +[[summary-section]] +It's customary to start the remainder of the first line after "area: " +with a lower-case letter. E.g. "doc: clarify...", not "doc: +Clarify...", or "githooks.txt: improve...", not "githooks.txt: +Improve...". + +[[meaningful-message]] +The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which: + +. explains the problem the change tries to solve, i.e. what is wrong + with the current code without the change. + +. justifies the way the change solves the problem, i.e. why the + result with the change is better. + +. alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any. + +[[imperative-mood]] +Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz" +instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy +to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change +its behavior. Try to make sure your explanation can be understood +without external resources. Instead of giving a URL to a mailing list +archive, summarize the relevant points of the discussion. + +[[commit-reference]] +If you want to reference a previous commit in the history of a stable +branch, use the format "abbreviated hash (subject, date)", like this: + +.... + Commit f86a374 (pack-bitmap.c: fix a memleak, 2015-03-30) + noticed that ... +.... + +The "Copy commit summary" command of gitk can be used to obtain this +format (with the subject enclosed in a pair of double-quotes), or this +invocation of `git show`: + +.... + git show -s --pretty=reference <commit> +.... + +or, on an older version of Git without support for --pretty=reference: + +.... + git show -s --date=short --pretty='format:%h (%s, %ad)' <commit> +.... + +[[git-tools]] +=== Generate your patch using Git tools out of your commits. + +Git based diff tools generate unidiff which is the preferred format. + +You do not have to be afraid to use `-M` option to `git diff` or +`git format-patch`, if your patch involves file renames. The +receiving end can handle them just fine. + +[[review-patch]] +Please make sure your patch does not add commented out debugging code, +or include any extra files which do not relate to what your patch +is trying to achieve. Make sure to review +your patch after generating it, to ensure accuracy. Before +sending out, please make sure it cleanly applies to the `master` +branch head. If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch, +that is fine, but please mark it as such. + +[[send-patches]] +=== Sending your patches. + +:security-ml: footnoteref:[security-ml,The Git Security mailing list: git-security@googlegroups.com] + +Before sending any patches, please note that patches that may be +security relevant should be submitted privately to the Git Security +mailing list{security-ml}, instead of the public mailing list. + +Learn to use format-patch and send-email if possible. These commands +are optimized for the workflow of sending patches, avoiding many ways +your existing e-mail client that is optimized for "multipart/*" mime +type e-mails to corrupt and render your patches unusable. + +People on the Git mailing list need to be able to read and +comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for +a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard +e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of +your code. For this reason, each patch should be submitted +"inline" in a separate message. + +Multiple related patches should be grouped into their own e-mail +thread to help readers find all parts of the series. To that end, +send them as replies to either an additional "cover letter" message +(see below), the first patch, or the respective preceding patch. + +If your log message (including your name on the +Signed-off-by line) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that +you send off a message in the correct encoding. + +WARNING: Be wary of your MUAs word-wrap +corrupting your patch. Do not cut-n-paste your patch; you can +lose tabs that way if you are not careful. + +It is a common convention to prefix your subject line with +[PATCH]. This lets people easily distinguish patches from other +e-mail discussions. Use of markers in addition to PATCH within +the brackets to describe the nature of the patch is also +encouraged. E.g. [RFC PATCH] (where RFC stands for "request for +comments") is often used to indicate a patch needs further +discussion before being accepted, [PATCH v2], [PATCH v3] etc. +are often seen when you are sending an update to what you have +previously sent. + +The `git format-patch` command follows the best current practice to +format the body of an e-mail message. At the beginning of the +patch should come your commit message, ending with the +Signed-off-by: lines, and a line that consists of three dashes, +followed by the diffstat information and the patch itself. If +you are forwarding a patch from somebody else, optionally, at +the beginning of the e-mail message just before the commit +message starts, you can put a "From: " line to name that person. +To change the default "[PATCH]" in the subject to "[<text>]", use +`git format-patch --subject-prefix=<text>`. As a shortcut, you +can use `--rfc` instead of `--subject-prefix="RFC PATCH"`, or +`-v <n>` instead of `--subject-prefix="PATCH v<n>"`. + +You often want to add additional explanation about the patch, +other than the commit message itself. Place such "cover letter" +material between the three-dash line and the diffstat. For +patches requiring multiple iterations of review and discussion, +an explanation of changes between each iteration can be kept in +Git-notes and inserted automatically following the three-dash +line via `git format-patch --notes`. + +[[attachment]] +Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not. +Do not let your e-mail client send quoted-printable. Do not let +your e-mail client send format=flowed which would destroy +whitespaces in your patches. Many +popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME +attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on +your code. A MIME attachment also takes a bit more time to +process. This does not decrease the likelihood of your +MIME-attached change being accepted, but it makes it more likely +that it will be postponed. + +Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask +you to re-send them using MIME, that is OK. + +[[pgp-signature]] +Do not PGP sign your patch. Most likely, your maintainer or other people on the +list would not have your PGP key and would not bother obtaining it anyway. +Your patch is not judged by who you are; a good patch from an unknown origin +has a far better chance of being accepted than a patch from a known, respected +origin that is done poorly or does incorrect things. + +If you really really really really want to do a PGP signed +patch, format it as "multipart/signed", not a text/plain message +that starts with `-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----`. That is +not a text/plain, it's something else. + +:security-ml-ref: footnoteref:[security-ml] + +As mentioned at the beginning of the section, patches that may be +security relevant should not be submitted to the public mailing list +mentioned below, but should instead be sent privately to the Git +Security mailing list{security-ml-ref}. + +Send your patch with "To:" set to the mailing list, with "cc:" listing +people who are involved in the area you are touching (the `git +contacts` command in `contrib/contacts/` can help to +identify them), to solicit comments and reviews. + +:current-maintainer: footnote:[The current maintainer: gitster@pobox.com] +:git-ml: footnote:[The mailing list: git@vger.kernel.org] + +After the list reached a consensus that it is a good idea to apply the +patch, re-send it with "To:" set to the maintainer{current-maintainer} and "cc:" the +list{git-ml} for inclusion. + +Do not forget to add trailers such as `Acked-by:`, `Reviewed-by:` and +`Tested-by:` lines as necessary to credit people who helped your +patch. + +[[sign-off]] +=== Certify your work by adding your "Signed-off-by: " line + +To improve tracking of who did what, we've borrowed the +"sign-off" procedure from the Linux kernel project on patches +that are being emailed around. Although core Git is a lot +smaller project it is a good discipline to follow it. + +The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for +the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have +the right to pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are +pretty simple: if you can certify the below D-C-O: + +[[dco]] +.Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 +____ +By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: + +a. The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I + have the right to submit it under the open source license + indicated in the file; or + +b. The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best + of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source + license and I have the right under that license to submit that + work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part + by me, under the same open source license (unless I am + permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated + in the file; or + +c. The contribution was provided directly to me by some other + person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified + it. + +d. I understand and agree that this project and the contribution + are public and that a record of the contribution (including all + personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is + maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with + this project or the open source license(s) involved. +____ + +then you just add a line saying + +.... + Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> +.... + +This line can be automatically added by Git if you run the git-commit +command with the -s option. + +Notice that you can place your own Signed-off-by: line when +forwarding somebody else's patch with the above rules for +D-C-O. Indeed you are encouraged to do so. Do not forget to +place an in-body "From: " line at the beginning to properly attribute +the change to its true author (see (2) above). + +[[real-name]] +Also notice that a real name is used in the Signed-off-by: line. Please +don't hide your real name. + +[[commit-trailers]] +If you like, you can put extra tags at the end: + +. `Reported-by:` is used to credit someone who found the bug that + the patch attempts to fix. +. `Acked-by:` says that the person who is more familiar with the area + the patch attempts to modify liked the patch. +. `Reviewed-by:`, unlike the other tags, can only be offered by the + reviewer and means that she is completely satisfied that the patch + is ready for application. It is usually offered only after a + detailed review. +. `Tested-by:` is used to indicate that the person applied the patch + and found it to have the desired effect. + +You can also create your own tag or use one that's in common usage +such as "Thanks-to:", "Based-on-patch-by:", or "Mentored-by:". + +== Subsystems with dedicated maintainers + +Some parts of the system have dedicated maintainers with their own +repositories. + +- `git-gui/` comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav: + + https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git + +- `gitk-git/` comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project: + + git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk + +- `po/` comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin: + + https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/ + +Patches to these parts should be based on their trees. + +[[patch-flow]] +== An ideal patch flow + +Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer +suggests to the contributors: + +. You come up with an itch. You code it up. + +. Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about + the change. ++ +The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you +are butchering. These people happen to be the ones who are +most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but +they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help, +don't demand). +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would +help you find out who they are. + +. You get comments and suggestions for improvements. You may + even get them in an "on top of your change" patch form. + +. Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who + spend their time to improve your patch. Go back to step (2). + +. The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is + good. Send it to the maintainer and cc the list. + +. A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to `next`, + and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`. + +In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up +from the list and queue it to `pu`, in order to make it easier for +people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to +their trees themselves. + +[[patch-status]] +== Know the status of your patch after submission + +* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in + master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied + patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top + of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not + tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of + master). + +* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages + entitled "What's cooking in git.git" and "What's in git.git" giving + the status of various proposed changes. + +[[travis]] +== GitHub-Travis CI hints + +With an account at GitHub (you can get one for free to work on open +source projects), you can use Travis CI to test your changes on Linux, +Mac (and hopefully soon Windows). You can find a successful example +test build here: https://travis-ci.org/git/git/builds/120473209 + +Follow these steps for the initial setup: + +. Fork https://github.com/git/git to your GitHub account. + You can find detailed instructions how to fork here: + https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo/ + +. Open the Travis CI website: https://travis-ci.org + +. Press the "Sign in with GitHub" button. + +. Grant Travis CI permissions to access your GitHub account. + You can find more information about the required permissions here: + https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/github-oauth-scopes + +. Open your Travis CI profile page: https://travis-ci.org/profile + +. Enable Travis CI builds for your Git fork. + +After the initial setup, Travis CI will run whenever you push new changes +to your fork of Git on GitHub. You can monitor the test state of all your +branches here: https://travis-ci.org/__<Your GitHub handle>__/git/branches + +If a branch did not pass all test cases then it is marked with a red +cross. In that case you can click on the failing Travis CI job and +scroll all the way down in the log. Find the line "<-- Click here to see +detailed test output!" and click on the triangle next to the log line +number to expand the detailed test output. Here is such a failing +example: https://travis-ci.org/git/git/jobs/122676187 + +Fix the problem and push your fix to your Git fork. This will trigger +a new Travis CI build to ensure all tests pass. + +[[mua]] +== MUA specific hints + +Some of patches I receive or pick up from the list share common +patterns of breakage. Please make sure your MUA is set up +properly not to corrupt whitespaces. + +See the DISCUSSION section of linkgit:git-format-patch[1] for hints on +checking your patch by mailing it to yourself and applying with +linkgit:git-am[1]. + +While you are at it, check the resulting commit log message from +a trial run of applying the patch. If what is in the resulting +commit is not exactly what you would want to see, it is very +likely that your maintainer would end up hand editing the log +message when he applies your patch. Things like "Hi, this is my +first patch.\n", if you really want to put in the patch e-mail, +should come after the three-dash line that signals the end of the +commit message. + + +=== Pine + +(Johannes Schindelin) + +.... +I don't know how many people still use pine, but for those poor +souls it may be good to mention that the quell-flowed-text is +needed for recent versions. + +... the "no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, too. AFAIK it +was introduced in 4.60. +.... + +(Linus Torvalds) + +.... +And 4.58 needs at least this. + +diff-tree 8326dd8350be64ac7fc805f6563a1d61ad10d32c (from e886a61f76edf5410573e92e38ce22974f9c40f1) +Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> +Date: Mon Aug 15 17:23:51 2005 -0700 + + Fix pine whitespace-corruption bug + + There's no excuse for unconditionally removing whitespace from + the pico buffers on close. + +diff --git a/pico/pico.c b/pico/pico.c +--- a/pico/pico.c ++++ b/pico/pico.c +@@ -219,7 +219,9 @@ PICO *pm; + switch(pico_all_done){ /* prepare for/handle final events */ + case COMP_EXIT : /* already confirmed */ + packheader(); ++#if 0 + stripwhitespace(); ++#endif + c |= COMP_EXIT; + break; +.... + +(Daniel Barkalow) + +.... +> A patch to SubmittingPatches, MUA specific help section for +> users of Pine 4.63 would be very much appreciated. + +Ah, it looks like a recent version changed the default behavior to do the +right thing, and inverted the sense of the configuration option. (Either +that or Gentoo did it.) So you need to set the +"no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, unless the option you have is +"strip-whitespace-before-send", in which case you should avoid checking +it. +.... + +=== Thunderbird, KMail, GMail + +See the MUA-SPECIFIC HINTS section of linkgit:git-format-patch[1]. + +=== Gnus + +"|" in the `*Summary*` buffer can be used to pipe the current +message to an external program, and this is a handy way to drive +`git am`. However, if the message is MIME encoded, what is +piped into the program is the representation you see in your +`*Article*` buffer after unwrapping MIME. This is often not what +you would want for two reasons. It tends to screw up non ASCII +characters (most notably in people's names), and also +whitespaces (fatal in patches). Running "C-u g" to display the +message in raw form before using "|" to run the pipe can work +this problem around. |