1Checklist 2 3(and a short version for the impatient): 4 5Commits: 6 7* make sure your work applies cleanly to branch master, it is not the default 8 branch. `git checkout * master`, you are welcome to run tests from 9 build/master to avoid needing Dist::Zilla 10* make commits of logical units 11* check for unnecessary whitespace with "git diff --check" before committing 12* do not check in commented out code or unneeded files 13* the first line of the commit message should be a short description and 14 should skip the full stop 15* the body should provide a meaningful commit message, which: 16 * uses the imperative, present tense: "change", not "changed" or "changes". 17 * includes motivation for the change, and contrasts its implementation with 18 previous behaviour 19* if you want your work included in the main repository, add a "Signed-off-by: 20 Your Name <you@example.com>" line to the commit message (or just use the 21 option "-s" when committing) to confirm that you agree to the Developer's 22 Certificate of Origin 23* make sure that you have tests for the bug you are fixing 24* make sure that the test suite passes after your commit. This distribution 25 is built with Dist::Zilla ensure that running `dzil test` passes. You are 26 responsible for ensuring that generated, hand written and author tests pass. 27 28Patch: 29 30* if you change, add, or remove any features or make some other user 31 interface change, the associated documentation should be updated as well. 32* if your name is not writable in ASCII, make sure that you send the 33 patch in the correct encoding. 34 35Long version: 36 37I started reading over the SubmittingPatches document for git, 38primarily because I wanted to have a document similar to it for 39my projects to make sure people understand what they are doing 40when they write "Signed-off-by" line. 41 42But the patch submission requirements are a lot more relaxed 43here on the technical/contents front, because my projects are 44thousand times smaller ;-). So here is only the relevant bits. 45 46 47(0) Decide what to base your work on. 48 49In general, always base your work on the oldest branch that your 50change is relevant to. 51 52* A bugfix should be based on 'maint' in general. If the bug is not 53present in 'maint', base it on 'master'. For a bug that's not yet 54in 'master', find the topic that introduces the regression, and 55base your work on the tip of the topic. If a 'maint' branch is not present 56base it on master. 57 58* A new feature should be based on 'master' in general. If the new 59feature depends on a topic that is in 'pu', but not in 'master', base your 60work on the tip of that topic. 61 62* Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in 'master' should be 63based on the tip of that topic. If the topic has not been merged to 'next', 64it's alright to add a note to squash minor corrections into the series. 65 66* In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics 67not in 'master', start working on 'next' or 'pu' privately and send out 68patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to wait until 69some of the dependent topics graduate to 'master', and rebase your work. 70 71To find the tip of a topic branch, run "git log --first-parent 72master..pu" and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this 73commit is the tip of the topic branch. 74 75 76(1) Make separate commits for logically separate changes. 77 78Unless your patch is really trivial, you should not be sending 79out a patch that was generated between your working tree and 80your commit head. Instead, always make a commit with complete 81commit message and generate a series of patches from your 82repository. It is a good discipline. 83 84Describe the technical detail of the change(s). 85 86If your description starts to get too long, that's a sign that you 87probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces. 88That being said, patches which plainly describe the things that 89help reviewers check the patch, and future maintainers understand 90the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarise 91the point in the subject well, and describe the motivation for the 92change, the approach taken by the change, and if relevant how this 93differs substantially from the prior version, can be found on Usenet 94archives back into the late 80's. Consider it like good Netiquette, 95but for code. 96 97Oh, another thing. I am picky about whitespaces. Make sure your 98changes do not trigger errors with the sample pre-commit hook shipped 99in templates/hooks--pre-commit. To help ensure this does not happen, 100run git diff --check on your changes before you commit. 101 102 103(2) Generate your patch using git tools out of your commits. 104 105git based diff tools (git, Cogito, and StGIT included) generate 106unidiff which is the preferred format. 107 108You do not have to be afraid to use -M option to "git diff" or 109"git format-patch", if your patch involves file renames. The 110receiving end can handle them just fine. 111 112Please make sure your patch does not include any extra files 113which do not belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review 114your patch after generating it, to ensure accuracy. Before 115sending out, please make sure it cleanly applies to the "master" 116branch head. If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch, 117that is fine, but please mark it as such. 118 119(4) Sign your work 120 121To improve tracking of who did what, we've borrowed the 122"sign-off" procedure from the Linux kernel project on patches 123that are being emailed around. Although this project is a lot 124smaller it is a good discipline to follow it. 125 126The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for 127the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have 128the right to pass it on as a open-source patch. The rules are 129pretty simple: if you can certify the below: 130 131 Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 132 133 By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: 134 135 (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I 136 have the right to submit it under the open source license 137 indicated in the file; or 138 139 (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best 140 of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source 141 license and I have the right under that license to submit that 142 work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part 143 by me, under the same open source license (unless I am 144 permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated 145 in the file; or 146 147 (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other 148 person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified 149 it. 150 151 (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution 152 are public and that a record of the contribution (including all 153 personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is 154 maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with 155 this project or the open source license(s) involved. 156 157then you just add a line saying 158 159 Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> 160 161This line can be automatically added by git if you run the git-commit 162command with the -s option. 163 164Notice that you can place your own Signed-off-by: line when 165forwarding somebody else's patch with the above rules for 166D-C-O. Indeed you are encouraged to do so. 167 168Also notice that a real name is used in the Signed-off-by: line. Please 169don't hide your real name. 170 171Some people also put extra tags at the end. 172 173"Acked-by:" says that the patch was reviewed by the person who 174is more familiar with the issues and the area the patch attempts 175to modify. "Tested-by:" says the patch was tested by the person 176and found to have the desired effect. 177 178 179An ideal patch flow 180 181Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer 182suggests to the contributors: 183 1840. You come up with an itch. You code it up. 1851. Send it to the bug tracker and cc people who may need to know about 186 the change. 187 188 The people who may need to know are the ones whose 189 code you are butchering. These people happen to be the ones who are most 190 likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but they have no obligation to 191 help you (i.e. you ask for help, don't demand). "git log -p -- 192 $area_you_are_modifying" would help you find out who they are. 193 1942. You get comments and suggestions for improvements. You may even 195 get them in a "on top of your change" patch form. 196 1973. Polish, refine, and re-send to the the people who spend their 198 time to improve your patch. Go back to step (2). 199 2004. A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to 'next', 201 and cooked further and eventually graduates to 'master'. 202 203In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up 204from the list and queue it to 'pu', in order to make it easier for 205people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to 206their trees themselves. 207 208 209Know the status of your patch after submission 210 211* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in 212master. 'git pull --rebase' will automatically skip already-applied 213patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top 214of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not 215tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of 216master). 217