diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/SubmittingPatches')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 113 |
1 files changed, 87 insertions, 26 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 98fc4cc1d0..bc8ad00473 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -61,23 +61,28 @@ Make sure that you have tests for the bug you are fixing. See t/README for guidance. When adding a new feature, make sure that you have new tests to show -the feature triggers the new behaviour when it should, and to show the -feature does not trigger when it shouldn't. Also make sure that the -test suite passes after your commit. Do not forget to update the -documentation to describe the updated behaviour. - -Speaking of the documentation, it is currently 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. +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. It is currently 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. Oh, another thing. We are picky about whitespaces. Make sure your changes do not trigger errors with the sample pre-commit hook shipped @@ -93,12 +98,17 @@ 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 @@ -116,6 +126,17 @@ its behaviour. 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. +If you want to reference a previous commit in the history of a stable +branch, use the format "abbreviated sha1 (subject, date)", +with the subject enclosed in a pair of double-quotes, 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, 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. @@ -201,12 +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 @@ -231,7 +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 @@ -370,6 +390,47 @@ Know the status of your patch after submission entitled "What's cooking in git.git" and "What's in git.git" giving the status of various proposed changes. +-------------------------------------------------- +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: + + (1) 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/ + + (2) Open the Travis CI website: https://travis-ci.org + + (3) Press the "Sign in with GitHub" button. + + (4) 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 + + (5) Open your Travis CI profile page: https://travis-ci.org/profile + + (6) 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 specific hints |