diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/SubmittingPatches')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 37 |
1 files changed, 21 insertions, 16 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 08352deaae..558d465b65 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ 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 summarise +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 @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ patches separate from other documentation changes. 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. +run "git diff --check" on your changes before you commit. (2) Describe your changes well. @@ -98,18 +98,23 @@ 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. - . archive: ustar header checksum is computed unsigned - . git-cherry-pick.txt: clarify the use of revision range notation + . 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. +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...". + The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which: - . explains the problem the change tries to solve, iow, what is wrong + . 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, iow, why the + . 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. @@ -117,7 +122,7 @@ The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which: 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 behaviour. Try to make sure your explanation can be understood +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. @@ -129,8 +134,9 @@ with the subject enclosed in a pair of double-quotes, like this: noticed that ... The "Copy commit summary" command of gitk can be used to obtain this -format. +format, or this invocation of "git show": + git show -s --date=short --pretty='format:%h ("%s", %ad)' <commit> (3) Generate your patch using Git tools out of your commits. @@ -216,12 +222,11 @@ 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. +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 @@ -246,7 +251,7 @@ patch. *2* The mailing list: git@vger.kernel.org -(5) Sign your work +(5) 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 @@ -256,7 +261,7 @@ 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: +pretty simple: if you can certify the below D-C-O: Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 |