1 Checklist (and a short version for the impatient):
5 - make commits of logical units
6 - check for unnecessary whitespace with "git diff --check"
8 - do not check in commented out code or unneeded files
9 - the first line of the commit message should be a short
10 description (50 characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION
11 in git-commit(1)), and should skip the full stop
12 - it is also conventional in most cases to prefix the
13 first line with "area: " where the area is a filename
14 or identifier for the general area of the code being
16 . archive: ustar header checksum is computed unsigned
17 . git-cherry-pick.txt: clarify the use of revision range notation
18 (if in doubt which identifier to use, run "git log --no-merges"
19 on the files you are modifying to see the current conventions)
20 - the body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:
21 . explains the problem the change tries to solve, iow, what
22 is wrong with the current code without the change.
23 . justifies the way the change solves the problem, iow, why
24 the result with the change is better.
25 . alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any.
26 - describe changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
27 instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed
28 xyzzy to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase
29 to change its behaviour.
30 - try to make sure your explanation can be understood without
31 external resources. Instead of giving a URL to a mailing list
32 archive, summarize the relevant points of the discussion.
33 - add a "Signed-off-by: Your Name <you@example.com>" line to the
34 commit message (or just use the option "-s" when committing)
35 to confirm that you agree to the Developer's Certificate of Origin
36 - make sure that you have tests for the bug you are fixing
37 - make sure that the test suite passes after your commit
41 - use "git format-patch -M" to create the patch
42 - do not PGP sign your patch
43 - do not attach your patch, but read in the mail
44 body, unless you cannot teach your mailer to
45 leave the formatting of the patch alone.
46 - be careful doing cut & paste into your mailer, not to
48 - provide additional information (which is unsuitable for
49 the commit message) between the "---" and the diffstat
50 - if you change, add, or remove a command line option or
51 make some other user interface change, the associated
52 documentation should be updated as well.
53 - if your name is not writable in ASCII, make sure that
54 you send off a message in the correct encoding.
55 - send the patch to the list (git@vger.kernel.org) and the
56 maintainer (gitster@pobox.com) if (and only if) the patch
57 is ready for inclusion. If you use git-send-email(1),
58 please test it first by sending email to yourself.
59 - see below for instructions specific to your mailer
63 Here are some guidelines for people who want to contribute their code
66 (0) Decide what to base your work on.
68 In general, always base your work on the oldest branch that your
69 change is relevant to.
71 - A bugfix should be based on 'maint' in general. If the bug is not
72 present in 'maint', base it on 'master'. For a bug that's not yet
73 in 'master', find the topic that introduces the regression, and
74 base your work on the tip of the topic.
76 - A new feature should be based on 'master' in general. If the new
77 feature depends on a topic that is in 'pu', but not in 'master',
78 base your work on the tip of that topic.
80 - Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in 'master' should
81 be based on the tip of that topic. If the topic has not been merged
82 to 'next', it's alright to add a note to squash minor corrections
85 - In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics
86 not in 'master', start working on 'next' or 'pu' privately and send
87 out patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to
88 wait until some of the dependent topics graduate to 'master', and
91 To find the tip of a topic branch, run "git log --first-parent
92 master..pu" and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this
93 commit is the tip of the topic branch.
95 (1) Make separate commits for logically separate changes.
97 Unless your patch is really trivial, you should not be sending
98 out a patch that was generated between your working tree and
99 your commit head. Instead, always make a commit with complete
100 commit message and generate a series of patches from your
101 repository. It is a good discipline.
103 Give an explanation for the change(s) that is detailed enough so
104 that people can judge if it is good thing to do, without reading
105 the actual patch text to determine how well the code does what
106 the explanation promises to do.
108 If your description starts to get too long, that's a sign that you
109 probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces.
110 That being said, patches which plainly describe the things that
111 help reviewers check the patch, and future maintainers understand
112 the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarise
113 the point in the subject well, and describe the motivation for the
114 change, the approach taken by the change, and if relevant how this
115 differs substantially from the prior version, are all good things
118 Oh, another thing. I am picky about whitespaces. Make sure your
119 changes do not trigger errors with the sample pre-commit hook shipped
120 in templates/hooks--pre-commit. To help ensure this does not happen,
121 run git diff --check on your changes before you commit.
124 (2) Generate your patch using git tools out of your commits.
126 git based diff tools generate unidiff which is the preferred format.
128 You do not have to be afraid to use -M option to "git diff" or
129 "git format-patch", if your patch involves file renames. The
130 receiving end can handle them just fine.
132 Please make sure your patch does not include any extra files
133 which do not belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review
134 your patch after generating it, to ensure accuracy. Before
135 sending out, please make sure it cleanly applies to the "master"
136 branch head. If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch,
137 that is fine, but please mark it as such.
140 (3) Sending your patches.
142 People on the git mailing list need to be able to read and
143 comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for
144 a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard
145 e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of
146 your code. For this reason, all patches should be submitted
147 "inline". WARNING: Be wary of your MUAs word-wrap
148 corrupting your patch. Do not cut-n-paste your patch; you can
149 lose tabs that way if you are not careful.
151 It is a common convention to prefix your subject line with
152 [PATCH]. This lets people easily distinguish patches from other
153 e-mail discussions. Use of additional markers after PATCH and
154 the closing bracket to mark the nature of the patch is also
155 encouraged. E.g. [PATCH/RFC] is often used when the patch is
156 not ready to be applied but it is for discussion, [PATCH v2],
157 [PATCH v3] etc. are often seen when you are sending an update to
158 what you have previously sent.
160 "git format-patch" command follows the best current practice to
161 format the body of an e-mail message. At the beginning of the
162 patch should come your commit message, ending with the
163 Signed-off-by: lines, and a line that consists of three dashes,
164 followed by the diffstat information and the patch itself. If
165 you are forwarding a patch from somebody else, optionally, at
166 the beginning of the e-mail message just before the commit
167 message starts, you can put a "From: " line to name that person.
169 You often want to add additional explanation about the patch,
170 other than the commit message itself. Place such "cover letter"
171 material between the three dash lines and the diffstat.
173 Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
174 Do not let your e-mail client send quoted-printable. Do not let
175 your e-mail client send format=flowed which would destroy
176 whitespaces in your patches. Many
177 popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME
178 attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on
179 your code. A MIME attachment also takes a bit more time to
180 process. This does not decrease the likelihood of your
181 MIME-attached change being accepted, but it makes it more likely
182 that it will be postponed.
184 Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
185 you to re-send them using MIME, that is OK.
187 Do not PGP sign your patch, at least for now. Most likely, your
188 maintainer or other people on the list would not have your PGP
189 key and would not bother obtaining it anyway. Your patch is not
190 judged by who you are; a good patch from an unknown origin has a
191 far better chance of being accepted than a patch from a known,
192 respected origin that is done poorly or does incorrect things.
194 If you really really really really want to do a PGP signed
195 patch, format it as "multipart/signed", not a text/plain message
196 that starts with '-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----'. That is
197 not a text/plain, it's something else.
199 Unless your patch is a very trivial and an obviously correct one,
200 first send it with "To:" set to the mailing list, with "cc:" listing
201 people who are involved in the area you are touching (the output from
202 "git blame $path" and "git shortlog --no-merges $path" would help to
203 identify them), to solicit comments and reviews. After the list
204 reached a consensus that it is a good idea to apply the patch, re-send
205 it with "To:" set to the maintainer and optionally "cc:" the list for
206 inclusion. Do not forget to add trailers such as "Acked-by:",
207 "Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by:" after your "Signed-off-by:" line as
213 To improve tracking of who did what, we've borrowed the
214 "sign-off" procedure from the Linux kernel project on patches
215 that are being emailed around. Although core GIT is a lot
216 smaller project it is a good discipline to follow it.
218 The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for
219 the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have
220 the right to pass it on as a open-source patch. The rules are
221 pretty simple: if you can certify the below:
223 Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
225 By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
227 (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
228 have the right to submit it under the open source license
229 indicated in the file; or
231 (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
232 of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
233 license and I have the right under that license to submit that
234 work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
235 by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
236 permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
239 (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
240 person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
243 (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
244 are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
245 personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
246 maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
247 this project or the open source license(s) involved.
249 then you just add a line saying
251 Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
253 This line can be automatically added by git if you run the git-commit
254 command with the -s option.
256 Notice that you can place your own Signed-off-by: line when
257 forwarding somebody else's patch with the above rules for
258 D-C-O. Indeed you are encouraged to do so. Do not forget to
259 place an in-body "From: " line at the beginning to properly attribute
260 the change to its true author (see (2) above).
262 Also notice that a real name is used in the Signed-off-by: line. Please
263 don't hide your real name.
265 If you like, you can put extra tags at the end:
267 1. "Reported-by:" is used to credit someone who found the bug that
268 the patch attempts to fix.
269 2. "Acked-by:" says that the person who is more familiar with the area
270 the patch attempts to modify liked the patch.
271 3. "Reviewed-by:", unlike the other tags, can only be offered by the
272 reviewer and means that she is completely satisfied that the patch
273 is ready for application. It is usually offered only after a
275 4. "Tested-by:" is used to indicate that the person applied the patch
276 and found it to have the desired effect.
278 You can also create your own tag or use one that's in common usage
279 such as "Thanks-to:", "Based-on-patch-by:", or "Mentored-by:".
281 ------------------------------------------------
284 Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
285 suggests to the contributors:
287 (0) You come up with an itch. You code it up.
289 (1) Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about
292 The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you
293 are butchering. These people happen to be the ones who are
294 most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
295 they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help,
296 don't demand). "git log -p -- $area_you_are_modifying" would
297 help you find out who they are.
299 (2) You get comments and suggestions for improvements. You may
300 even get them in a "on top of your change" patch form.
302 (3) Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
303 spend their time to improve your patch. Go back to step (2).
305 (4) The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
306 good. Send it to the list and cc the maintainer.
308 (5) A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to 'next',
309 and cooked further and eventually graduates to 'master'.
311 In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
312 from the list and queue it to 'pu', in order to make it easier for
313 people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
314 their trees themselves.
316 ------------------------------------------------
317 Know the status of your patch after submission
319 * You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in
320 master. 'git pull --rebase' will automatically skip already-applied
321 patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
322 of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
323 tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of
326 * Read the git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
327 entitled "What's cooking in git.git" and "What's in git.git" giving
328 the status of various proposed changes.
330 ------------------------------------------------
333 Some of patches I receive or pick up from the list share common
334 patterns of breakage. Please make sure your MUA is set up
335 properly not to corrupt whitespaces.
337 See the DISCUSSION section of git-format-patch(1) for hints on
338 checking your patch by mailing it to yourself and applying with
341 While you are at it, check the resulting commit log message from
342 a trial run of applying the patch. If what is in the resulting
343 commit is not exactly what you would want to see, it is very
344 likely that your maintainer would end up hand editing the log
345 message when he applies your patch. Things like "Hi, this is my
346 first patch.\n", if you really want to put in the patch e-mail,
347 should come after the three-dash line that signals the end of the
354 (Johannes Schindelin)
356 I don't know how many people still use pine, but for those poor
357 souls it may be good to mention that the quell-flowed-text is
358 needed for recent versions.
360 ... the "no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, too. AFAIK it
361 was introduced in 4.60.
365 And 4.58 needs at least this.
368 diff-tree 8326dd8350be64ac7fc805f6563a1d61ad10d32c (from e886a61f76edf5410573e92e38ce22974f9c40f1)
369 Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org>
370 Date: Mon Aug 15 17:23:51 2005 -0700
372 Fix pine whitespace-corruption bug
374 There's no excuse for unconditionally removing whitespace from
375 the pico buffers on close.
377 diff --git a/pico/pico.c b/pico/pico.c
380 @@ -219,7 +219,9 @@ PICO *pm;
381 switch(pico_all_done){ /* prepare for/handle final events */
382 case COMP_EXIT : /* already confirmed */
393 > A patch to SubmittingPatches, MUA specific help section for
394 > users of Pine 4.63 would be very much appreciated.
396 Ah, it looks like a recent version changed the default behavior to do the
397 right thing, and inverted the sense of the configuration option. (Either
398 that or Gentoo did it.) So you need to set the
399 "no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, unless the option you have is
400 "strip-whitespace-before-send", in which case you should avoid checking
404 Thunderbird, KMail, GMail
405 -------------------------
407 See the MUA-SPECIFIC HINTS section of git-format-patch(1).
412 '|' in the *Summary* buffer can be used to pipe the current
413 message to an external program, and this is a handy way to drive
414 "git am". However, if the message is MIME encoded, what is
415 piped into the program is the representation you see in your
416 *Article* buffer after unwrapping MIME. This is often not what
417 you would want for two reasons. It tends to screw up non ASCII
418 characters (most notably in people's names), and also
419 whitespaces (fatal in patches). Running 'C-u g' to display the
420 message in raw form before using '|' to run the pipe can work