mirror of
https://github.com/ceph/ceph
synced 2026-08-01 22:45:39 +00:00
doc/SubmittingPatches.rst: rv double spaces and Please
Signed-off-by: Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.com>
This commit is contained in:
Nathan Cutler
parent
6f2e7cada8
commit
47ff2bf0d5
@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ SIGNING CONTRIBUTIONS
|
||||
|
||||
In order to keep the record of code attribution clean within the source
|
||||
repository, follow these guidelines for signing patches submitted to the
|
||||
project. These definitions are taken from those used by the Linux kernel
|
||||
project. These definitions are taken from those used by the Linux kernel
|
||||
and many other open source projects.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ patches that are being emailed around.
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
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
|
||||
@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ then you just add a line saying ::
|
||||
|
||||
using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
|
||||
|
||||
Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored for
|
||||
Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored for
|
||||
now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
|
||||
point out some special detail about the sign-off.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -129,22 +129,22 @@ arrange to have an ``Acked-by:`` line added to the patch's changelog.
|
||||
``Acked-by:`` is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
|
||||
maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
|
||||
|
||||
``Acked-by:`` is not as formal as ``Signed-off-by:``. It is a record that the acker
|
||||
has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
|
||||
``Acked-by:`` is not as formal as ``Signed-off-by:``. It is a record that the acker
|
||||
has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
|
||||
mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
|
||||
into an ``Acked-by:``.
|
||||
|
||||
``Acked-by:`` does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
|
||||
For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an ``Acked-by:`` from
|
||||
one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just
|
||||
the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here.
|
||||
the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here.
|
||||
When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
|
||||
list archives.
|
||||
|
||||
If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
|
||||
provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch.
|
||||
This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
|
||||
person it names. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
|
||||
person it names. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
|
||||
have been included in the discussion
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -152,14 +152,13 @@ have been included in the discussion
|
||||
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
If this patch fixes a problem reported by somebody else, consider adding a
|
||||
Reported-by: tag to credit the reporter for their contribution. Please
|
||||
note that this tag should not be added without the reporter's permission,
|
||||
especially if the problem was not reported in a public forum. That said,
|
||||
if we diligently credit our bug reporters, they will, hopefully, be
|
||||
inspired to help us again in the future.
|
||||
Reported-by: tag to credit the reporter for their contribution. This tag should
|
||||
not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the problem was
|
||||
not reported in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit our bug
|
||||
reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the future.
|
||||
|
||||
A ``Tested-by:`` tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
|
||||
some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that
|
||||
some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that
|
||||
some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
|
||||
future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -176,7 +175,7 @@ By offering my ``Reviewed-by:`` tag, I state that:
|
||||
the mainline kernel.
|
||||
|
||||
(b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
|
||||
have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied
|
||||
have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied
|
||||
with the submitter's response to my comments.
|
||||
|
||||
(c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
|
||||
@ -191,10 +190,10 @@ By offering my ``Reviewed-by:`` tag, I state that:
|
||||
|
||||
A ``Reviewed-by`` tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
|
||||
appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
|
||||
technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
|
||||
offer a ``Reviewed-by`` tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
|
||||
technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
|
||||
offer a ``Reviewed-by`` tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
|
||||
reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
|
||||
done on the patch. ``Reviewed-by:`` tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
|
||||
done on the patch. ``Reviewed-by:`` tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
|
||||
understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
|
||||
increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -202,14 +201,14 @@ increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
|
||||
PREPARING AND SENDING PATCHES
|
||||
=============================
|
||||
|
||||
The upstream repository is managed by Git. You will find that it
|
||||
The upstream repository is managed by Git. You will find that it
|
||||
is easiest to work on the project and submit changes by using the
|
||||
git tools, both for managing your own code and for preparing and
|
||||
sending patches.
|
||||
|
||||
The project will generally accept code either by pulling code directly from
|
||||
a published git tree (usually on github), or via patches emailed directly
|
||||
to the email list (ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org). For the kernel client,
|
||||
to the email list (ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org). For the kernel client,
|
||||
patches are expected to be reviewed in the email list. And for everything
|
||||
else, github is preferred due to the convenience of the 'pull request'
|
||||
feature.
|
||||
@ -255,7 +254,7 @@ email list to ensure your submission is noticed.
|
||||
When addressing review comments, can should either add additional patches to
|
||||
your branch or (better yet) squash those changes into the relevant commits so
|
||||
that the sequence of changes is "clean" and gets things right the first time.
|
||||
The 'git rebase -i' command is very helpful in this process. Once you have
|
||||
The 'git rebase -i' command is very helpful in this process. Once you have
|
||||
updated your local branch, you can simply force-push to the existing branch
|
||||
in your public repository that is referenced by the pull request with
|
||||
|
||||
@ -263,7 +262,7 @@ in your public repository that is referenced by the pull request with
|
||||
|
||||
$ git push -f origin mything
|
||||
|
||||
and your changes will be visible from the existing pull-request. You may want
|
||||
and your changes will be visible from the existing pull-request. You may want
|
||||
to ping the reviewer again or comment on the pull request to ensure the updates
|
||||
are noticed.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -320,17 +319,17 @@ A: You don't. If someone reviews your pull request, they should indicate they
|
||||
--------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
The best way to generate a patch for manual submission is to work from
|
||||
a Git checkout of the Ceph source code. You can then generate patches
|
||||
with the 'git format-patch' command. For example,
|
||||
a Git checkout of the Ceph source code. You can then generate patches
|
||||
with the 'git format-patch' command. For example,
|
||||
|
||||
.. code-block:: bash
|
||||
|
||||
$ git format-patch HEAD^^ -o mything
|
||||
|
||||
will take the last two commits and generate patches in the mything/
|
||||
directory. The commit you specify on the command line is the
|
||||
'upstream' commit that you are diffing against. Note that it does
|
||||
not necesarily have to be an ancestor of your current commit. You
|
||||
directory. The commit you specify on the command line is the
|
||||
'upstream' commit that you are diffing against. Note that it does
|
||||
not necesarily have to be an ancestor of your current commit. You
|
||||
can do something like
|
||||
|
||||
.. code-block:: bash
|
||||
@ -344,27 +343,27 @@ can do something like
|
||||
and the patches will be against origin/unstable.
|
||||
|
||||
The ``-o`` dir is optional; if left off, the patch(es) will appear in
|
||||
the current directory. This can quickly get messy.
|
||||
the current directory. This can quickly get messy.
|
||||
|
||||
You can also add ``--cover-letter`` and get a '0000' patch in the
|
||||
mything/ directory. That can be updated to include any overview
|
||||
stuff for a multipart patch series. If it's a single patch, don't
|
||||
mything/ directory. That can be updated to include any overview
|
||||
stuff for a multipart patch series. If it's a single patch, don't
|
||||
bother.
|
||||
|
||||
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-
|
||||
belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review your patch -after-
|
||||
generated it with ``diff(1)``, to ensure accuracy.
|
||||
|
||||
If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you may want to look into
|
||||
splitting them into individual patches which modify things in
|
||||
logical stages. This will facilitate easier reviewing by other
|
||||
logical stages. This will facilitate easier reviewing by other
|
||||
kernel developers, very important if you want your patch accepted.
|
||||
There are a number of scripts which can aid in this.
|
||||
|
||||
The ``git send-email`` command make it super easy to send patches
|
||||
(particularly those prepared with git format patch). It is careful to
|
||||
(particularly those prepared with git format patch). It is careful to
|
||||
format the emails correctly so that you don't have to worry about your
|
||||
email client mangling whitespace or otherwise screwing things up. It
|
||||
email client mangling whitespace or otherwise screwing things up. It
|
||||
works like so:
|
||||
|
||||
.. code-block:: bash
|
||||
@ -408,20 +407,20 @@ release process.
|
||||
Commit message
|
||||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||||
|
||||
Be as specific as possible. The WORST descriptions possible include
|
||||
Be as specific as possible. The WORST descriptions possible include
|
||||
things like "update driver X", "bug fix for driver X", or "this patch
|
||||
includes updates for subsystem X. Please apply."
|
||||
includes updates for subsystem X. Please apply."
|
||||
|
||||
If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably
|
||||
need to split up your patch. See :ref:`split_changes`.
|
||||
need to split up your patch. See :ref:`split_changes`.
|
||||
|
||||
When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
|
||||
complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
|
||||
say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the
|
||||
complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
|
||||
say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the
|
||||
patch merger to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
|
||||
URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
|
||||
I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
|
||||
This benefits both the patch merger(s) and reviewers. Some reviewers
|
||||
This benefits both the patch merger(s) and reviewers. Some reviewers
|
||||
probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
|
||||
|
||||
Tag the commit
|
||||
@ -458,15 +457,15 @@ Separate *logical changes* into a single patch file.
|
||||
|
||||
For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance
|
||||
enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two
|
||||
or more patches. If your changes include an API update, and a new
|
||||
or more patches. If your changes include an API update, and a new
|
||||
driver which uses that new API, separate those into two patches.
|
||||
|
||||
On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files,
|
||||
group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change
|
||||
group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change
|
||||
is contained within a single patch.
|
||||
|
||||
If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
|
||||
complete, that is OK. Simply note "this patch depends on patch X"
|
||||
complete, that is OK. Simply note "this patch depends on patch X"
|
||||
in your patch description.
|
||||
|
||||
If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
|
||||
@ -499,24 +498,24 @@ Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
|
||||
found in CodingStyle.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
7. No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text
|
||||
7. No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text
|
||||
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Developers need to be able to read and comment on the changes you are
|
||||
submitting. It is important for a kernel developer to be able to
|
||||
submitting. It is important for a kernel 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 submitting e-mail "inline".
|
||||
WARNING: Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
|
||||
WARNING: Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
|
||||
if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
|
||||
|
||||
Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
|
||||
Many 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 Linus a bit more time to process,
|
||||
code. A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more time to process,
|
||||
decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted.
|
||||
|
||||
Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
|
||||
Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
|
||||
you to re-send them using MIME.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
