before committing
- do not check in commented out code or unneeded files
- the first line of the commit message should be a short
- description and should skip the full stop
+ description (50 characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION
+ in git-commit(1)), and should skip the full stop
- the body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:
- - uses the imperative, present tense: "change",
- not "changed" or "changes".
- - includes motivation for the change, and contrasts
- its implementation with previous behaviour
- - if you want your work included in git.git, add a
- "Signed-off-by: Your Name <you@example.com>" line to the
- commit message (or just use the option "-s" when
- committing) to confirm that you agree to the Developer's
- Certificate of Origin
+ . explains the problem the change tries to solve, iow, what
+ is wrong with the current code without the change.
+ . justifies the way the change solves the problem, iow, why
+ the result with the change is better.
+ . alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any.
+ - describe 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 without
+ external resources. Instead of giving a URL to a mailing list
+ archive, summarize the relevant points of the discussion.
+ - add a "Signed-off-by: Your Name <you@example.com>" line to the
+ commit message (or just use the option "-s" when committing)
+ to confirm that you agree to the Developer's Certificate of Origin
- make sure that you have tests for the bug you are fixing
- make sure that the test suite passes after your commit
commit message and generate a series of patches from your
repository. It is a good discipline.
-Describe the technical detail of the change(s).
+Give an explanation for the change(s) that is detailed enough so
+that people can judge if it is good thing to do, without reading
+the actual patch text to determine how well the code does what
+the explanation promises to do.
If your description starts to get too long, that's a sign that you
probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces.
the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarise
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, can be found on Usenet
-archives back into the late 80's. Consider it like good Netiquette,
-but for code.
+differs substantially from the prior version, are all good things
+to have.
Oh, another thing. I am picky about whitespaces. Make sure your
changes do not trigger errors with the sample pre-commit hook shipped
Also notice that a real name is used in the Signed-off-by: line. Please
don't hide your real name.
-Some people also put extra tags at the end.
-
-"Acked-by:" says that the patch was reviewed by the person who
-is more familiar with the issues and the area the patch attempts
-to modify. "Tested-by:" says the patch was tested by the person
-and found to have the desired effect.
+If you like, you can put extra tags at the end:
+
+1. "Reported-by:" is used to to credit someone who found the bug that
+ the patch attempts to fix.
+2. "Acked-by:" says that the person who is more familiar with the area
+ the patch attempts to modify liked the patch.
+3. "Reviewed-by:", unlike the other tags, can only be offered by the
+ reviewer and means that she is completely satisfied that the patch
+ is ready for application. It is usually offered only after a
+ detailed review.
+4. "Tested-by:" is used to indicate that the person applied the patch
+ and found it to have the desired effect.
+
+You can also create your own tag or use one that's in common usage
+such as "Thanks-to:", "Based-on-patch-by:", or "Mentored-by:".
------------------------------------------------
An ideal patch flow