| I started reading over the SubmittingPatches document for Linux | |
| kernel, primarily because I wanted to have a document similar to | |
| it for the core GIT to make sure people understand what they are | |
| doing when they write "Signed-off-by" line. | |
| But the patch submission requirements are a lot more relaxed | |
| here, because the core GIT is thousand times smaller ;-). So | |
| here is only the relevant bits. | |
| (1) 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. | |
| Describe the technical detail of the change(s). | |
| If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you | |
| probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces. | |
| (2) Generate your patch using git/cogito out of your commits. | |
| git 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. | |
| Please make sure your patch does not include any extra files | |
| which do not belong in a patch submission. 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. | |
| (3) Sending your patches. | |
| People on the git mailing list needs 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, all patches should be submitting | |
| e-mail "inline". WARNING: Be wary of your MUAs word-wrap | |
| corrupting your patch. Do not cut-n-paste your patch. | |
| It is common convention to prefix your subject line with | |
| [PATCH]. This lets people easily distinguish patches from other | |
| e-mail discussions. | |
| "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. | |
| 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 lines and the diffstat. | |
| Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not. | |
| Do not let your e-mail client send quoted-printable. 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. | |
| Do not PGP sign your patch, at least for now. 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. | |
| Note that your maintainer does not necessarily read everything | |
| on the git mailing list. If your patch is for discussion first, | |
| send it "To:" the mailing list, and optionally "cc:" him. If it | |
| is trivially correct or after the list reached a consensus, send | |
| it "To:" the maintainer and optionally "cc:" the list. | |
| (6) Sign your work | |
| 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 a open-source patch. The rules are | |
| pretty simple: if you can certify the below: | |
| 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> | |
| Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored for | |
| now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just | |
| point out some special detail about the sign-off. | |
| ------------------------------------------------ | |
| 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. Here are two common ones | |
| I have seen: | |
| * Empty context lines that do not have _any_ whitespace. | |
| * Non empty context lines that have one extra whitespace at the | |
| beginning. | |
| One test you could do yourself if your MUA is set up correctly is: | |
| * Send the patch to yourself, exactly the way you would, except | |
| To: and Cc: lines, which would not contain the list and | |
| maintainer address. | |
| * Save that patch to a file in UNIX mailbox format. Call it say | |
| a.patch. | |
| * Try to apply to the tip of the "master" branch from the | |
| git.git public repository: | |
| $ git fetch http://kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master:test-apply | |
| $ git checkout test-apply | |
| $ git reset --hard | |
| $ git applymbox a.patch | |
| If it does not apply correctly, there can be various reasons. | |
| * Your patch itself does not apply cleanly. That is _bad_ but | |
| does not have much to do with your MUA. Please rebase the | |
| patch appropriately. | |
| * Your MUA corrupted your patch; applymbox would complain that | |
| the patch does not apply. Look at .dotest/ subdirectory and | |
| see what 'patch' file contains and check for the common | |
| corruption patterns mentioned above. | |
| * While you are at it, check what are in 'info' and | |
| 'final-commit' files as well. If what is in 'final-commit' is | |
| not exactly what you would want to see in the commit log | |
| message, 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 | |
| ----------- | |
| (A Large Angry SCM) | |
| Here are some hints on how to successfully submit patches inline using | |
| Thunderbird. | |
| This recipe appears to work with the current [*1*] Thunderbird from Suse. | |
| The following Thunderbird extensions are needed: | |
| AboutConfig 0.5 | |
| http://aboutconfig.mozdev.org/ | |
| External Editor 0.5.4 | |
| http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/exteditor | |
| 1) Prepare the patch as a text file using your method of choice. | |
| 2) Before opening a compose window, use Edit->Account Settings to | |
| uncheck the "Compose messages in HTML format" setting in the | |
| "Composition & Addressing" panel of the account to be used to send the | |
| patch. [*2*] | |
| 3) In the main Thunderbird window, _before_ you open the compose window | |
| for the patch, use Tools->about:config to set the following to the | |
| indicated values: | |
| mailnews.send_plaintext_flowed => false | |
| mailnews.wraplength => 0 | |
| 4) Open a compose window and click the external editor icon. | |
| 5) In the external editor window, read in the patch file and exit the | |
| editor normally. | |
| 6) Back in the compose window: Add whatever other text you wish to the | |
| message, complete the addressing and subject fields, and press send. | |
| 7) Optionally, undo the about:config/account settings changes made in | |
| steps 2 & 3. | |
| [Footnotes] | |
| *1* Version 1.0 (20041207) from the MozillaThunderbird-1.0-5 rpm of Suse | |
| 9.3 professional updates. | |
| *2* It may be possible to do this with about:config and the following | |
| settings but I haven't tried, yet. | |
| mail.html_compose => false | |
| mail.identity.default.compose_html => false | |
| mail.identity.id?.compose_html => false | |