Ecosyste.ms: Awesome

An open API service indexing awesome lists of open source software.

Awesome Lists | Featured Topics | Projects

https://github.com/xenoterracide/dist-zilla-plugin-submittingpatches

Add SubmittingPatches documentation
https://github.com/xenoterracide/dist-zilla-plugin-submittingpatches

Last synced: 25 days ago
JSON representation

Add SubmittingPatches documentation

Awesome Lists containing this project

README 

        
NAME

    Dist::Zilla::Plugin::SubmittingPatches - Add SubmittingPatches

    documentation



VERSION

    version 0.03



SYNOPSIS

    In "dist.ini":



            [SubmittingPatches]



DESCRIPTION

    add a patch submission policy to your repository similar to that of

    git.git. In the long run I'm hoping to be able to generate slightly

    different policies with this module. Complaints, or suggestions about

    the actual policy are welcome



BUGS

    Please report any bugs or feature requests on

     as I'm not fond of RT.



PATCHES

    Please read the SubmittingPatches file included with this Distribution.

    Patches that are of sufficient quality, within the goals of the project

    and pass the checklist will probably be accepted.



AUTHOR

    Caleb Cushing 



COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE

    This software is Copyright (c) 2010 by Caleb Cushing

    .



    This is free software, licensed under:



      The Artistic License 2.0



SubmittingPatches Doc Below

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------



Checklist

    (and a short version for the impatient):



  Commits:

    *   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 description

        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 the main repository, add a

        "Signed-off-by: Your Name " 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



  Patch:

    *   use "git format-patch -M" to create the patch



    *   do not PGP sign your patch



    *   be careful doing cut & paste, not to corrupt whitespaces.



    *   provide additional information (which is unsuitable for the commit

        message) between the "---" and the diffstat



    *   if you change, add, or remove any features or make some other user

        interface change, the associated documentation should be updated as

        well.



    *   if your name is not writable in ASCII, make sure that you send the

        patch in the correct encoding.



Long version:

    I started reading over the SubmittingPatches document for git, primarily

    because I wanted to have a document similar to it for my projects to

    make sure people understand what they are doing when they write

    "Signed-off-by" line.



    But the patch submission requirements are a lot more relaxed here on the

    technical/contents front, because my projects are thousand times smaller

    ;-). So here is only the relevant bits.



  (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.



  (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.



    Describe the technical detail of the change(s).



    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. 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 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.



    Oh, another thing. I am 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.



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

    git based diff tools (git, Cogito, and StGIT included) 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 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" branch head. If you are preparing a

    work based on "next" branch, that is fine, but please mark it as such.



  (3) Sending your patches.

    People need to be able to read and comment on the changes you are

    submitting. Do not cut-n-paste your patch; you can lose tabs that way if

    you are not careful.



    It is a common convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH]. This

    lets people easily distinguish patches from other 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.



    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 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.



    Unless your patch is a very trivial and an obviously correct one, first

    send it with "To:" set to the RT email (or 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

    necessary.



  (4) 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 this project is a lot smaller 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

                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.



    then you just add a line saying



            Signed-off-by: Random J Developer 



    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 forwarding

    somebody else's patch with the above rules for D-C-O. Indeed you are

    encouraged to do so.



    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.



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 bug tracker 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 the people who spend their time to

    improve your patch. Go back to step (2).



    4. 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.



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

        master).