involve coding style or whitespace modifications are discouraged,
primarily because they cause problems when rebasing and backporting.
-.. _Submitting Patches: SubmittingPatches
+.. _Submitting Patches: SubmittingPatches.rst
.. _Documenting Ceph: doc/start/documenting-ceph.rst
Code contributions must include a valid "Signed-off-by" acknowledging
the license for the modified or contributed file. Please see the file
-SubmittingPatches for details on what that means and on how to
+SubmittingPatches.rst for details on what that means and on how to
generate and submit patches.
We do not require assignment of copyright to contribute code; code is
+++ /dev/null
-==========================
-Submitting Patches to Ceph
-==========================
-
-This is based on Documentation/SubmittingPatches from the Linux kernel,
-but has pared down significantly and updated based on the Ceph project's
-best practices.
-
-The patch signing procedures and definitions are unmodified.
-
----------------------
-SIGNING CONTRIBUTIONS
----------------------
-
-In order to keep the record of code attribution clean within the
-source repository, please follow these guidelines for signing
-patches submitted to the project. These definitions are taken
-from those used by the Linux kernel and many other open source
-projects.
-
-1) Sign your work
-
-To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can
-percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several
-layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on
-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
-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 <random@developer.example.org>
-
-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
-now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
-point out some special detail about the sign-off.
-
-If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
-modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
-exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to
-rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally
-counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust
-the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and
-make them endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that
-you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating
-the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it
-seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all
-enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that
-you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :
-
- Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
- [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
- Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org>
-
-This practise is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and
-want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix,
-and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
-can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
-which appears in the changelog.
-
-Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practise
-to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit
-message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance,
-here's what we see in 2.6-stable :
-
- Date: Tue May 13 19:10:30 2008 +0000
-
- SCSI: libiscsi regression in 2.6.25: fix nop timer handling
-
- commit 4cf1043593db6a337f10e006c23c69e5fc93e722 upstream
-
-And here's what appears in 2.4 :
-
- Date: Tue May 13 22:12:27 2008 +0200
-
- wireless, airo: waitbusy() won't delay
-
- [backport of 2.6 commit b7acbdfbd1f277c1eb23f344f899cfa4cd0bf36a]
-
-Whatever the format, this information provides a valuable help to people
-tracking your trees, and to people trying to trouble-shoot bugs in your
-tree.
-
-
-2) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
-
-The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
-development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
-
-If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
-patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
-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
-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.
-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
-have been included in the discussion
-
-
-3) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by: and Reviewed-by:
-
-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.
-
-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 testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
-future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
-
-Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
-acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
-
- Reviewer's statement of oversight
-
- By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
-
- (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
- evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
- the mainline kernel.
-
- (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
- 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
- submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
- worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
- issues which would argue against its inclusion.
-
- (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
- do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
- warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
- purpose or function properly in any given situation.
-
-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
-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
-understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
-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
-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). Github is preferred due to
-the convenience of the 'pull request' feature.
-
-1) Github pull request
-
-The preferred way to submit code is by publishing your patches in a branch
-in your github fork of the ceph repository and then submitting a github
-pull request.
-
-For example, prepare your changes:
-
- $ git checkout -b mything
- ...code furiously...
- $ git commit # git gui is also quite convenient
- $ git push origin mything
-
-Then submit a pull request at
-
- https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pulls
-
-and click 'New pull request'. The 'hub' command-line tool, available from
-
- https://github.com/github/hub
-
-allows you to submit pull requests directly from the command line:
-
- $ hub pull-request -b ceph:master -h you:mything
-
-Pull requests appear in the review queue at
-
- https://github.com/organizations/ceph/dashboard/pulls
-
-You may want to ping a developer in #ceph-devel on irc.oftc.net or on the
-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
-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
-
- $ git push -f origin mything
-
-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.
-
-Q: Which branch should I target in my pull request?
-
-A: The target branch depends on the nature of your change:
-
- If you are adding a feature, target the "master" branch in your pull
- request.
-
- If you are fixing a bug, target the named branch corresponding to the
- major version that is currently in development. For example, if
- Infernalis is the latest stable release and Jewel is development, target
- the "jewel" branch for bugfixes. The Ceph core developers will
- periodically merge this named branch into "master". When this happens,
- the master branch will contain your fix as well.
-
- If you are fixing a bug (see above) *and* the bug exists in older stable
- branches (for example, the "hammer" or "infernalis" branches), then you
- should file a Redmine ticket describing your issue and fill out the
- "Backport: <branchname>" form field. This will notify other developers that
- your commit should be cherry-picked to these stable branches. For example,
- you should set "Backport: hammer" in your Redmine ticket to indicate that
- you are fixing a bug that exists on the "hammer" branch and that you
- desire that your change be cherry-picked to that branch.
-
-Q: How to include Reviewed-by: tag(s) in my pull request?
-
- You don't. If someone reviews your pull request, they should indicate they
- have done so by commenting on it with "+1", "looks good to me", "LGTM",
- and/or the entire "Reviewed-by: ..." line with their name and email address.
-
- The developer merging the pull request should note positive reviews and
- include the appropriate Reviewed-by: lines in the merge commit.
-
-2) Patch submission via ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
-
-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,
-
- $ 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
-can do something like
-
- $ git checkout -b mything
- $ ... do lots of stuff ...
- $ git fetch
- ...find out that origin/unstable has also moved forward...
- $ git format-patch origin/unstable -o mything
-
-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.
-
-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
-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-
-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
-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
-format the emails correctly so that you don't have to worry about your
-email client mangling whitespace or otherwise screwing things up. It
-works like so:
-
- $ git send-email --to ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org my.patch
-
-for a single patch, or
-
- $ git send-email --to ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org mything
-
-to send a whole patch series (prepared with, say, git format-patch).
-
-
-3) Describe your changes.
-
-Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes.
-
-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."
-
-The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
-form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management
-system, git, as a "commit log". See #15, below.
-
-If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably
-need to split up your patch. See #3, next.
-
-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
-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
-probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
-
-If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by
-number and URL.
-
-
-4) Separate your changes.
-
-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
-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
-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"
-in your patch description.
-
-If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
-then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
-
-
-
-5) Style check your changes.
-
-Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
-found in CodingStyle.
-
-
-
-6) 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
-"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,
-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,
-decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted.
-
-Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
-you to re-send them using MIME.
-
--- /dev/null
+==========================
+Submitting Patches to Ceph
+==========================
+
+This is based on Documentation/SubmittingPatches from the Linux kernel,
+but has pared down significantly and updated based on the Ceph project's
+best practices.
+
+The patch signing procedures and definitions are unmodified.
+
+---------------------
+SIGNING CONTRIBUTIONS
+---------------------
+
+In order to keep the record of code attribution clean within the
+source repository, please follow these guidelines for signing
+patches submitted to the project. These definitions are taken
+from those used by the Linux kernel and many other open source
+projects.
+
+1) Sign your work
+
+To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can
+percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several
+layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on
+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
+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 <random@developer.example.org>
+
+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
+now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
+point out some special detail about the sign-off.
+
+If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
+modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
+exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to
+rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally
+counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust
+the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and
+make them endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that
+you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating
+the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it
+seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all
+enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that
+you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :
+
+ Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
+ [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
+ Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org>
+
+This practise is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and
+want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix,
+and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
+can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
+which appears in the changelog.
+
+Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practise
+to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit
+message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance,
+here's what we see in 2.6-stable :
+
+ Date: Tue May 13 19:10:30 2008 +0000
+
+ SCSI: libiscsi regression in 2.6.25: fix nop timer handling
+
+ commit 4cf1043593db6a337f10e006c23c69e5fc93e722 upstream
+
+And here's what appears in 2.4 :
+
+ Date: Tue May 13 22:12:27 2008 +0200
+
+ wireless, airo: waitbusy() won't delay
+
+ [backport of 2.6 commit b7acbdfbd1f277c1eb23f344f899cfa4cd0bf36a]
+
+Whatever the format, this information provides a valuable help to people
+tracking your trees, and to people trying to trouble-shoot bugs in your
+tree.
+
+
+2) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
+
+The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
+development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
+
+If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
+patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
+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
+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.
+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
+have been included in the discussion
+
+
+3) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by: and Reviewed-by:
+
+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.
+
+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 testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
+future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
+
+Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
+acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
+
+ Reviewer's statement of oversight
+
+ By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
+
+ (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
+ evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
+ the mainline kernel.
+
+ (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
+ 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
+ submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
+ worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
+ issues which would argue against its inclusion.
+
+ (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
+ do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
+ warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
+ purpose or function properly in any given situation.
+
+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
+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
+understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
+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
+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). Github is preferred due to
+the convenience of the 'pull request' feature.
+
+1) Github pull request
+
+The preferred way to submit code is by publishing your patches in a branch
+in your github fork of the ceph repository and then submitting a github
+pull request.
+
+For example, prepare your changes:
+
+ $ git checkout -b mything
+ ...code furiously...
+ $ git commit # git gui is also quite convenient
+ $ git push origin mything
+
+Then submit a pull request at
+
+ https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pulls
+
+and click 'New pull request'. The 'hub' command-line tool, available from
+
+ https://github.com/github/hub
+
+allows you to submit pull requests directly from the command line:
+
+ $ hub pull-request -b ceph:master -h you:mything
+
+Pull requests appear in the review queue at
+
+ https://github.com/organizations/ceph/dashboard/pulls
+
+You may want to ping a developer in #ceph-devel on irc.oftc.net or on the
+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
+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
+
+ $ git push -f origin mything
+
+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.
+
+Q: Which branch should I target in my pull request?
+
+A: The target branch depends on the nature of your change:
+
+ If you are adding a feature, target the "master" branch in your pull
+ request.
+
+ If you are fixing a bug, target the named branch corresponding to the
+ major version that is currently in development. For example, if
+ Infernalis is the latest stable release and Jewel is development, target
+ the "jewel" branch for bugfixes. The Ceph core developers will
+ periodically merge this named branch into "master". When this happens,
+ the master branch will contain your fix as well.
+
+ If you are fixing a bug (see above) *and* the bug exists in older stable
+ branches (for example, the "hammer" or "infernalis" branches), then you
+ should file a Redmine ticket describing your issue and fill out the
+ "Backport: <branchname>" form field. This will notify other developers that
+ your commit should be cherry-picked to these stable branches. For example,
+ you should set "Backport: hammer" in your Redmine ticket to indicate that
+ you are fixing a bug that exists on the "hammer" branch and that you
+ desire that your change be cherry-picked to that branch.
+
+Q: How to include Reviewed-by: tag(s) in my pull request?
+
+ You don't. If someone reviews your pull request, they should indicate they
+ have done so by commenting on it with "+1", "looks good to me", "LGTM",
+ and/or the entire "Reviewed-by: ..." line with their name and email address.
+
+ The developer merging the pull request should note positive reviews and
+ include the appropriate Reviewed-by: lines in the merge commit.
+
+2) Patch submission via ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
+
+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,
+
+ $ 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
+can do something like
+
+ $ git checkout -b mything
+ $ ... do lots of stuff ...
+ $ git fetch
+ ...find out that origin/unstable has also moved forward...
+ $ git format-patch origin/unstable -o mything
+
+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.
+
+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
+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-
+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
+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
+format the emails correctly so that you don't have to worry about your
+email client mangling whitespace or otherwise screwing things up. It
+works like so:
+
+ $ git send-email --to ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org my.patch
+
+for a single patch, or
+
+ $ git send-email --to ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org mything
+
+to send a whole patch series (prepared with, say, git format-patch).
+
+
+3) Describe your changes.
+
+Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes.
+
+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."
+
+The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
+form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management
+system, git, as a "commit log". See #15, below.
+
+If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably
+need to split up your patch. See #3, next.
+
+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
+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
+probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
+
+If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by
+number and URL.
+
+
+4) Separate your changes.
+
+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
+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
+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"
+in your patch description.
+
+If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
+then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
+
+
+
+5) Style check your changes.
+
+Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
+found in CodingStyle.
+
+
+
+6) 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
+"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,
+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,
+decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted.
+
+Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
+you to re-send them using MIME.
+
projects / ceph.git / commitdiff