mirrors/git
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-10-28 12:59:41 +01:00
Code Activity

Merge branch 'jc/patch-flow-updates'

Browse source 
Doc updates.

* jc/patch-flow-updates:
  SubmittingPatches: extend the "flow" section
  SubmittingPatches: move the patch-flow section earlier
This commit is contained in:
Junio C Hamano 2024-05-23 11:04:27 -07:00
commit d525723b99
1 changed files with 70 additions and 51 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

121
Documentation/SubmittingPatches
View file

@ -7,6 +7,73 @@ Here are some guidelines for contributing back to this
project. There is also a link:MyFirstContribution.html[step-by-step tutorial]
available which covers many of these same guidelines.
[[patch-flow]]
=== A typical life cycle of a patch series
To help us understand the reason behind various guidelines given later
in the document, first let's understand how the life cycle of a
typical patch series for this project goes.
. You come up with an itch. You code it up. You do not need any
pre-authorization from the project to do so.
+
Your patches will be reviewed by other contributors on the mailing
list, and the reviews will be done to assess the merit of various
things, like the general idea behind your patch (including "is it
solving a problem worth solving in the first place?"), the reason
behind the design of the solution, and the actual implementation.
The guidelines given here are there to help your patches by making
them easier to understand by the reviewers.
. You send the patches to the list and cc people who may need to know
about the change. Your goal is *not* necessarily to convince others
that what you are building is good. Your goal is to get help in
coming up with a solution for the "itch" that is better than what
you can build alone.
+
The people who may need to know are the ones who worked on the code
you are touching. These people happen to be the ones who are
most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help,
you don't demand). +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
help you find out who they are.
. You get comments and suggestions for improvements. You may even get
them in an "on top of your change" patch form. You are expected to
respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking
them into account while preparing an updated set of patches.
. Polish, refine, and re-send your patches to the list and to the people
who spent their time to improve your patch. Go back to step (2).
. While the above iterations improve your patches, the maintainer may
pick the patches up from the list and queue them to the `seen`
branch, in order to make it easier for people to play with it
without having to pick up and apply the patches to their trees
themselves. Being in `seen` has no other meaning. Specifically, it
does not mean the patch was "accepted" in any way.
. When the discussion reaches a consensus that the latest iteration of
the patches are in good enough shape, the maintainer includes the
topic in the "What's cooking" report that are sent out a few times a
week to the mailing list, marked as "Will merge to 'next'." This
decision is primarily made by the maintainer with help from those
who participated in the review discussion.
. After the patches are merged to the 'next' branch, the discussion
can still continue to further improve them by adding more patches on
top, but by the time a topic gets merged to 'next', it is expected
that everybody agrees that the scope and the basic direction of the
topic are appropriate, so such an incremental updates are limited to
small corrections and polishing. After a topic cooks for some time
(like 7 calendar days) in 'next' without needing further tweaks on
top, it gets merged to the 'master' branch and wait to become part
of the next major release.
In the following sections, many techniques and conventions are listed
to help your patches get reviewed effectively in such a life cycle.
[[choose-starting-point]]
=== Choose a starting point.
@ -192,8 +259,9 @@ reasons:
which case, they can explain why they extend your code to cover
files, too).
The goal of your log message is to convey the _why_ behind your
change to help future developers.
The goal of your log message is to convey the _why_ behind your change
to help future developers. The reviewers will also make sure that
your proposed log message will serve this purpose well.
The first line of the commit message should be a short description (50
characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION in linkgit:git-commit[1]),
@ -562,55 +630,6 @@ repositories.
Patches to these parts should be based on their trees.
[[patch-flow]]
== An ideal patch flow
Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
suggests to the contributors:
. You come up with an itch. You code it up.
. Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about
the change.
+
The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you
are butchering. These people happen to be the ones who are
most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help,
don't demand). +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
help you find out who they are.
. You get comments and suggestions for improvements. You may
even get them in an "on top of your change" patch form.
. Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
spend their time to improve your patch. Go back to step (2).
. The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
good. Send it to the maintainer and cc the list.
. A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to `next`,
and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.
In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for
people to play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
their trees themselves.
[[patch-status]]
== Know the status of your patch after submission
* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in
master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied
patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of
master).
* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
entitled "What's cooking in git.git" giving
the status of various proposed changes.
== GitHub CI[[GHCI]]
With an account at GitHub, you can use GitHub CI to test your changes