SubmittingPatches 17.5 KB
Newer Older
1 2
Checklist (and a short version for the impatient):

3 4

5 6 7 8 9
	- make commits of logical units
	- check for unnecessary whitespace with "git diff --check"
	  before committing
	- do not check in commented out code or unneeded files
	- the first line of the commit message should be a short
10 11
	  description (50 characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION
	  in git-commit(1)), and should skip the full stop
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
	- it is also conventional in most cases to 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
	  (if in doubt which identifier to use, run "git log --no-merges"
	  on the files you are modifying to see the current conventions)
	- the body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
	  . 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.
33 34 35
	- add a "Signed-off-by: Your Name <[email protected]>" 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
36 37
	- make sure that you have tests for the bug you are fixing
	- make sure that the test suite passes after your commit
38 39 40


	- use "git format-patch -M" to create the patch
	- do not PGP sign your patch
43 44 45 46 47 48 49
	- do not attach your patch, but read in the mail
	  body, unless you cannot teach your mailer to
	  leave the formatting of the patch alone.
	- be careful doing cut & paste into your mailer, not to
	  corrupt whitespaces.
	- provide additional information (which is unsuitable for
	  the commit message) between the "---" and the diffstat
50 51 52
	- if you change, add, or remove a command line option or
	  make some other user interface change, the associated
	  documentation should be updated as well.
53 54
	- if your name is not writable in ASCII, make sure that
	  you send off a message in the correct encoding.
	- send the patch to the list ([email protected]) and the
56 57 58
	  maintainer ([email protected]) if (and only if) the patch
	  is ready for inclusion. If you use git-send-email(1),
	  please test it first by sending email to yourself.
	- see below for instructions specific to your mailer
60 61 62

Long version:

63 64
Here are some guidelines for people who want to contribute their code
to this software.
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
(0) Decide what to base your work on.

In general, always base your work on the oldest branch that your
change is relevant to.

 - A bugfix should be based on 'maint' in general. If the bug is not
   present in 'maint', base it on 'master'. For a bug that's not yet
   in 'master', find the topic that introduces the regression, and
   base your work on the tip of the topic.

 - A new feature should be based on 'master' in general. If the new
   feature depends on a topic that is in 'pu', but not in 'master',
   base your work on the tip of that topic.

 - Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in 'master' should
   be based on the tip of that topic. If the topic has not been merged
   to 'next', it's alright to add a note to squash minor corrections
   into the series.

 - In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics
   not in 'master', start working on 'next' or 'pu' privately and send
   out patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to
   wait until some of the dependent topics graduate to 'master', and
   rebase your work.

To find the tip of a topic branch, run "git log --first-parent
master..pu" and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this
commit is the tip of the topic branch.
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

(1) Make separate commits for logically separate changes.

Unless your patch is really trivial, you should not be sending
out a patch that was generated between your working tree and
your commit head.  Instead, always make a commit with complete
commit message and generate a series of patches from your
repository.  It is a good discipline.

103 104 105 106
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.
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed

If your description starts to get too long, that's a sign that you
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces.
110 111 112 113 114
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 point in the subject well, and describe the motivation for the
change, the approach taken by the change, and if relevant how this
115 116
differs substantially from the prior version, are all good things
to have.
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed

118 119
Oh, another thing.  I am picky about whitespaces.  Make sure your
changes do not trigger errors with the sample pre-commit hook shipped
120 121
in templates/hooks--pre-commit.  To help ensure this does not happen,
run git diff --check on your changes before you commit.
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
122 123

124 125
(2) Generate your patch using git tools out of your commits.

git based diff tools generate unidiff which is the preferred format.

Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135
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
receiving end can handle them just fine.

Please make sure your patch does not include any extra files
which do not belong in a patch submission.  Make sure to review
your patch after generating it, to ensure accuracy.  Before
sending out, please make sure it cleanly applies to the "master"
136 137
branch head.  If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch,
that is fine, but please mark it as such.
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
138 139 140 141

(3) Sending your patches.

People on the git mailing list need to be able to read and
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
143 144 145
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
Pavel Roskin's avatar
Pavel Roskin committed
your code.  For this reason, all patches should be submitted
147 148 149
"inline".  WARNING: Be wary of your MUAs word-wrap
corrupting your patch.  Do not cut-n-paste your patch; you can
lose tabs that way if you are not careful.
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed

It is a common convention to prefix your subject line with
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
[PATCH].  This lets people easily distinguish patches from other
153 154 155 156 157 158
e-mail discussions.  Use of additional markers after PATCH and
the closing bracket to mark the nature of the patch is also
encouraged.  E.g. [PATCH/RFC] is often used when the patch is
not ready to be applied but it is for discussion, [PATCH v2],
[PATCH v3] etc. are often seen when you are sending an update to
what you have previously sent.
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173

"git format-patch" command follows the best current practice to
format the body of an e-mail message.  At the beginning of the
patch should come your commit message, ending with the
Signed-off-by: lines, and a line that consists of three dashes,
followed by the diffstat information and the patch itself.  If
you are forwarding a patch from somebody else, optionally, at
the beginning of the e-mail message just before the commit
message starts, you can put a "From: " line to name that person.

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.

Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
174 175 176
Do not let your e-mail client send quoted-printable.  Do not let
your e-mail client send format=flowed which would destroy
whitespaces in your patches. Many
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184
popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME
attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on
your code.  A MIME attachment also takes a bit more time to
process.  This does not decrease the likelihood of your
MIME-attached change being accepted, but it makes it more likely
that it will be postponed.

Exception:  If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
you to re-send them using MIME, that is OK.
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed

Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198
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.

If you really really really really want to do a PGP signed
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.

199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208
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

Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed

(4) Sign your work
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252

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
smaller project it is a good discipline to follow it.

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:

        Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

        By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

        (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
            have the right to submit it under the open source license
            indicated in the file; or

        (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
            of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
            license and I have the right under that license to submit that
            work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
            by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
            permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
            in the file; or

        (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
            person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified

	(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 <[email protected]>

253 254 255
This line can be automatically added by git if you run the git-commit
command with the -s option.

256 257 258 259 260 261
Notice that you can place your own Signed-off-by: line when
forwarding somebody else's patch with the above rules for
D-C-O.  Indeed you are encouraged to do so.  Do not forget to
place an in-body "From: " line at the beginning to properly attribute
the change to its true author (see (2) above).

262 263 264
Also notice that a real name is used in the Signed-off-by: line. Please
don't hide your real name.

265 266
If you like, you can put extra tags at the end:

1. "Reported-by:" is used to credit someone who found the bug that
268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279
   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:".

281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315
An ideal patch flow

Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
suggests to the contributors:

 (0) You come up with an itch.  You code it up.

 (1) 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 -- $area_you_are_modifying" would
     help you find out who they are.

 (2) You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may
     even get them in a "on top of your change" patch form.

 (3) Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
     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.

 (5) 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 'pu', in order to make it easier for
people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
their trees themselves.

316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329
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 pu if you rebase on top of

* 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.

330 331 332 333 334
MUA specific hints

Some of patches I receive or pick up from the list share common
patterns of breakage.  Please make sure your MUA is set up
335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348
properly not to corrupt whitespaces.

See the DISCUSSION section of git-format-patch(1) for hints on
checking your patch by mailing it to yourself and applying with

While you are at it, check the resulting commit log message from
a trial run of applying the patch.  If what is in the resulting
commit is not exactly what you would want to see, it is very
likely that your maintainer would end up hand editing the log
message when he applies your patch.  Things like "Hi, this is my
first patch.\n", if you really want to put in the patch e-mail,
should come after the three-dash line that signals the end of the
commit message.
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed

350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380


(Johannes Schindelin)

I don't know how many people still use pine, but for those poor
souls it may be good to mention that the quell-flowed-text is
needed for recent versions.

... the "no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, too. AFAIK it
was introduced in 4.60.

(Linus Torvalds)

And 4.58 needs at least this.

diff-tree 8326dd8350be64ac7fc805f6563a1d61ad10d32c (from e886a61f76edf5410573e92e38ce22974f9c40f1)
Author: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Date:   Mon Aug 15 17:23:51 2005 -0700

    Fix pine whitespace-corruption bug

    There's no excuse for unconditionally removing whitespace from
    the pico buffers on close.

diff --git a/pico/pico.c b/pico/pico.c
--- a/pico/pico.c
+++ b/pico/pico.c
@@ -219,7 +219,9 @@ PICO *pm;
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
381 382 383
	    switch(pico_all_done){	/* prepare for/handle final events */
	      case COMP_EXIT :		/* already confirmed */
+#if 0
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
Junio C Hamano's avatar
Junio C Hamano committed
387 388 389
		c |= COMP_EXIT;


391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402
(Daniel Barkalow)

> A patch to SubmittingPatches, MUA specific help section for
> users of Pine 4.63 would be very much appreciated.

Ah, it looks like a recent version changed the default behavior to do the
right thing, and inverted the sense of the configuration option. (Either
that or Gentoo did it.) So you need to set the
"no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, unless the option you have is
"strip-whitespace-before-send", in which case you should avoid checking


404 405
Thunderbird, KMail, GMail

See the MUA-SPECIFIC HINTS section of git-format-patch(1).
408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421


'|' in the *Summary* buffer can be used to pipe the current
message to an external program, and this is a handy way to drive
"git am".  However, if the message is MIME encoded, what is
piped into the program is the representation you see in your
*Article* buffer after unwrapping MIME.  This is often not what
you would want for two reasons.  It tends to screw up non ASCII
characters (most notably in people's names), and also
whitespaces (fatal in patches).  Running 'C-u g' to display the
message in raw form before using '|' to run the pipe can work
this problem around.