Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:25:46 -0700 | | From | Randy Dunlap <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] doc: add suggestions about good practises for maintainers |
| |
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:34:46 +0200 Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Linus, > > I'm proposing the following add-on to SubmittingPatches. I think > it clarifies the situation for maintainers and back-porters. > > Regards, > Willy > -- > > >From 1bf91b1072323ae3150c8962f36092b5b8528c48 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:20:28 +0200 > Subject: doc: add suggestions about good practises for maintainers > > Suggest how to deal with patch modifications caused by > merging or back-porting when you're a maintainer. > > Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> > --- > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > index 9c93a03..6e7183b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > @@ -327,6 +327,52 @@ 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 him 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 ciscumstances
circumstances
> +you can change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
can you change
> +which appears in the changelog. > + > +Special note to back-porters. It seems to be a common and useful practise
back-porters:
> +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. > + > > 13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc: > > --
--- ~Randy
|  |