diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'src/ceph/SubmittingPatches.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/ceph/SubmittingPatches.rst | 517 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 517 deletions
diff --git a/src/ceph/SubmittingPatches.rst b/src/ceph/SubmittingPatches.rst deleted file mode 100644 index 0f20155..0000000 --- a/src/ceph/SubmittingPatches.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,517 +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 <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). For the kernel client, -patches are expected to be reviewed in the email list. And for everything -else, 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 - -.. code-block:: bash - - # ...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'. See :ref:`_title_of_commit` for our naming -convention of pull requests. The 'hub' command-line tool, available from - - https://github.com/github/hub - -allows you to submit pull requests directly from the command line - -.. code-block:: bash - - $ 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 - -.. code-block:: bash - - $ 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. - -Sometimes your change could be based on an outdated parent commit and has -conflicts with the latest target branch, then you need to fetch the updates -from the remote branch, rebase your change onto it, and resolve the conflicts -before doing the force-push - -.. code-block:: bash - - $ git pull --rebase origin target-branch - -So that the pull request does not contain any "merge" commit. Instead of "merging" -the target branch, we expect a linear history in a pull request where you -commit on top of the remote branch. - -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 one or more stable branches. Then, - target the "master" branch in your pull request. - - For example, you should set "Backport: jewel, kraken" in your Redmine ticket - to indicate that you are fixing a bug that exists on the "jewel" and - "kraken" branches and that you desire that your change be cherry-picked to - those branches after it is merged into master. - -Q: How to include ``Reviewed-by: tag(s)`` in my pull request? - -A: 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, - -.. code-block:: bash - - $ 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 - -.. code-block:: bash - - $ 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: - -.. code-block:: bash - - $ git send-email --to ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org my.patch - -for a single patch, or - -.. code-block:: bash - - $ 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. - -.. _title_of_commit: - -Title of pull requests and title of commits -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - -The text up to the first empty line in a commit message is the commit -title. Ideally it is a single short line less than 50 characters, -summarizing the change. It is required to prefix it with the -subsystem or module you are changing. For instance, the prefix -could be "doc:", "osd:", or "common:". One can use:: - - git log - -for more examples. Please use this convention for naming pull requests -(subsystem: short description) also, as it feeds directly into the script -that generates release notes and it's tedious to clean up at release time. - -Commit message -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - -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." - -If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably -need to split up your patch. See :ref:`split_changes`. - -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. - -Tag the commit -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - -If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by -URL. In particular, if this patch fixes one or more issues -tracked by http://tracker.ceph.com, consider adding a ``Fixes:`` tag to -connect this change to addressed issue(s). So a line saying :: - - Fixes: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12345 - -is added before the ``Signed-off-by:`` line stating that this commit -addresses http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12345. It helps the reviewer to -get more context of this bug, so she/he can hence update the issue on -the bug tracker accordingly. - -So a typical commit message for revising the document could look like:: - - doc: add "--foo" option to bar - - * update the man page for bar with the newly added "--foo" option. - * fix a typo - - Fixes: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12345 - Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> - -.. _split_changes: - -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. Document your changes ------------------------- - -If you have added or modified any user-facing functionality, such -as CLI commands or their output, then the patch series or pull request -must include appropriate updates to documentation. - -It is the submitter's responsibility to make the changes, and the reviewer's -responsibility to make sure they are not merging changes that do not -have the needed updates to documentation. - -Where there are areas that have absent documentation, or there is no -clear place to note the change that is being made, the reviewer should -contact the component lead, who should arrange for the missing section -to be created with sufficient detail for the patch submitter to -document their changes. - -6. Style check your changes ---------------------------- - -Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be -found in CodingStyle. - - -7. 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. - |