Ramkumar RamachandraAdd a section 0 explaining which commit to base patches on. Rewrite a couple of paragraphs about signing off patches to reflect Junio's updated preferences.
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> --- Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Show changes to Documentation/SubmittingPatches +41 −11
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index abc65de..a90155c 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -53,6 +53,37 @@ 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. + +The general principle is always to base your work on the oldest branch +that your change is relevant to. + + - A fix for a bug that has been with git from older releases should be + included in both the upcoming feature release and the current + maintenance release. Try to base your work on the 'maint' branch. A + work to kill a bug that is in 'master' but not in 'maint' should be + based on 'master'. + + - A fix for a bug that is not yet in 'master' is the best bug to kill. + If you can find the topic that introduces the regression, base your + work on the tip of the topic. "log --first-parent master..pu" would be + a good way to find the tips of topic branches. + + - A new feature should be based on the 'master' branch in general. + + - If your new feature depends on some other topics that are not in + 'master' yet, and if it relies only on one topic, base your work on the + tip of that topic. If it depends on too many topics that are not in + 'master', you can privately start working on 'next' or even 'pu' and + send out your patches for discussion, but it is possible that your + maintainer may ask you to wait and rebase your changes on 'master' + after some of the larger topics your topic depends on graduate to + 'master'. + + - Base corrections and enhancements on a topic that are not in 'master' + yet but already merged to 'next' on the tip of the topic. If the topic + has not been merged to 'next', it is Ok to add a note that the patch is + a trivial fix and can be squashed into the series. (1) Make separate commits for logically separate changes. @@ -170,17 +201,16 @@ 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
-- 1.7.0.4
