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
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.
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.
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.
+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.
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
*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
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