differs substantially from the prior version, are all good things
to have.
-Make sure that you have tests for the bug you are fixing.
+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
test suite passes after your commit. Do not forget to update the
documentation to describe the updated behaviour.
-Oh, another thing. I am picky about whitespaces. Make sure your
+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.
+
+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.
archive, summarize the relevant points of the discussion.
-(3) Generate your patch using git tools out of your commits.
+(3) Generate your patch using Git tools out of your commits.
-git based diff tools generate unidiff which is the preferred format.
+Git based diff tools generate unidiff which is the preferred format.
You do not have to be afraid to use -M option to "git diff" or
"git format-patch", if your patch involves file renames. The
(4) Sending your patches.
-People on the git mailing list need to be able to read and
+Learn to use format-patch and send-email if possible. These commands
+are optimized for the workflow of sending patches, avoiding many ways
+your existing e-mail client that is optimized for "multipart/*" mime
+type e-mails to corrupt and render your patches unusable.
+
+People on the Git mailing list need to be able to read and
comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for
a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard
e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of
-your code. For this reason, all patches should be submitted
-"inline". If your log message (including your name on the
+your code. For this reason, each patch should be submitted
+"inline" in a separate message.
+
+Multiple related patches should be grouped into their own e-mail
+thread to help readers find all parts of the series. To that end,
+send them as replies to either an additional "cover letter" message
+(see below), the first patch, or the respective preceding patch.
+
+If your log message (including your name on the
Signed-off-by line) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that
you send off a message in the correct encoding.
You often want to add additional explanation about the patch,
other than the commit message itself. Place such "cover letter"
-material between the three dash lines and the diffstat.
+material between the three-dash line and the diffstat. For
+patches requiring multiple iterations of review and discussion,
+an explanation of changes between each iteration can be kept in
+Git-notes and inserted automatically following the three-dash
+line via `git format-patch --notes`.
Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
Do not let your e-mail client send quoted-printable. Do not let
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 "cc:" the
-list for inclusion.
+patch, re-send it with "To:" set to the maintainer [*1*] and "cc:" the
+list [*2*] for inclusion.
Do not forget to add trailers such as "Acked-by:", "Reviewed-by:" and
"Tested-by:" lines as necessary to credit people who helped your
patch.
+ [Addresses]
+ *1* The current maintainer: gitster@pobox.com
+ *2* The mailing list: git@vger.kernel.org
+
(5) Sign your work
To improve tracking of who did what, we've borrowed the
"sign-off" procedure from the Linux kernel project on patches
-that are being emailed around. Although core GIT is a lot
+that are being emailed around. Although core Git is a lot
smaller project it is a good discipline to follow it.
The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for
person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
it.
- (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
- are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
- personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
- maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
- this project or the open source license(s) involved.
+ (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
+ are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
+ personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
+ maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
+ this project or the open source license(s) involved.
then you just add a line saying
- Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
+ Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
-This line can be automatically added by git if you run the git-commit
+This line can be automatically added by Git if you run the git-commit
command with the -s option.
Notice that you can place your own Signed-off-by: line when
spend their time to improve your patch. Go back to step (2).
(4) The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
- good. Send it to the list and cc the maintainer.
+ good. Send it to the maintainer and cc the list.
(5) A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to 'next',
and cooked further and eventually graduates to 'master'.
tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of
master).
-* Read the git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
+* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
entitled "What's cooking in git.git" and "What's in git.git" giving
the status of various proposed changes.