From: Kefu Chai Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:28:36 +0000 (+0800) Subject: doc: rename SubmittingPatches to SubmittingPatches.rst X-Git-Tag: v10.0.4~189^2~5 X-Git-Url: http://git-server-git.apps.pok.os.sepia.ceph.com/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=a9cd2575137b35cea6137d27591521325c1fe7db;p=ceph.git doc: rename SubmittingPatches to SubmittingPatches.rst for better reading experience Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai --- diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.rst b/CONTRIBUTING.rst index 3bc51fd4184e..cd06d47f2359 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.rst +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.rst @@ -14,5 +14,5 @@ implements a feature. Except on rare occasions, code cleanup that only 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 diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index a3684e40d1e9..96fd53c27afb 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ COPYING for a full inventory of licenses by file. 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 diff --git a/SubmittingPatches b/SubmittingPatches deleted file mode 100644 index 05b62acbbc7a..000000000000 --- a/SubmittingPatches +++ /dev/null @@ -1,418 +0,0 @@ -========================== -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 - -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 - [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h] - Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer - -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: " 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. - diff --git a/SubmittingPatches.rst b/SubmittingPatches.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..05b62acbbc7a --- /dev/null +++ b/SubmittingPatches.rst @@ -0,0 +1,418 @@ +========================== +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 + +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 + [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h] + Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer + +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: " 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. +