diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 49 |
1 files changed, 38 insertions, 11 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 84248daa58..eb53e0636e 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -54,6 +54,34 @@ But the patch submission requirements are a lot more relaxed here on the technical/contents front, because the core GIT is thousand times smaller ;-). So here is only the relevant bits. +(0) 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. + +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. (1) Make separate commits for logically separate changes. @@ -171,17 +199,16 @@ 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 for -inclusion. - -Also note that your maintainer does not actively involve himself in -maintaining what are in contrib/ hierarchy. When you send fixes and -enhancements to them, do not forget to "cc: " the person who primarily -worked on that hierarchy in contrib/. +Unless your patch is a very trivial and an obviously correct one, +first send it with "To:" set to the mailing list, with "cc:" listing +people who are involved in the area you are touching (the output from +"git blame $path" and "git shortlog --no-merges $path" would help to +identify them), to solicit comments and reviews. 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 and optionally "cc:" the list for +inclusion. Do not forget to add trailers such as "Acked-by:", +"Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by:" after your "Signed-off-by:" line as +necessary. (4) Sign your work |