diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst | 84 |
1 files changed, 63 insertions, 21 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst index 1b7728b19ea7..9999bcbdccc9 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst @@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ kernel. Unsurprisingly, the kernel development community has evolved a set of conventions and procedures which are used in the posting of patches; following them will make life much easier for everybody involved. This document will attempt to cover these expectations in reasonable detail; -more information can also be found in the files process/submitting-patches.rst, -process/submitting-drivers.rst, and process/submit-checklist.rst in the kernel documentation -directory. +more information can also be found in the files +:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` +and :ref:`Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst <submitchecklist>`. When to post @@ -191,17 +191,38 @@ change to a revision control system. It will be followed by: option to diff will associate function names with changes, making the resulting patch easier for others to read. -You should avoid including changes to irrelevant files (those generated by -the build process, for example, or editor backup files) in the patch. The -file "dontdiff" in the Documentation directory can help in this regard; -pass it to diff with the "-X" option. +The tags already briefly mentioned above are used to provide insights how +the patch came into being. They are described in detail in the +:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` +document; what follows here is a brief summary. -The tags mentioned above are used to describe how various developers have -been associated with the development of this patch. They are described in -detail in the process/submitting-patches.rst document; what follows here is a brief -summary. Each of these lines has the format: +One tag is used to refer to earlier commits which introduced problems fixed by +the patch:: -:: + Fixes: 1f2e3d4c5b6a ("The first line of the commit specified by the first 12 characters of its SHA-1 ID") + +Another tag is used for linking web pages with additional backgrounds or +details, for example an earlier discussion which leads to the patch or a +document with a specification implemented by the patch:: + + Link: https://example.com/somewhere.html optional-other-stuff + +As per guidance from the Chief Penguin, a Link: tag should only be added to +a commit if it leads to useful information that is not found in the commit +itself. + +If the URL points to a public bug report being fixed by the patch, use the +"Closes:" tag instead:: + + Closes: https://example.com/issues/1234 optional-other-stuff + +Some bug trackers have the ability to close issues automatically when a +commit with such a tag is applied. Some bots monitoring mailing lists can +also track such tags and take certain actions. Private bug trackers and +invalid URLs are forbidden. + +Another kind of tag is used to document who was involved in the development of +the patch. Each of these uses this format:: tag: Full Name <email address> optional-other-stuff @@ -210,8 +231,15 @@ The tags in common use are: - Signed-off-by: this is a developer's certification that he or she has the right to submit the patch for inclusion into the kernel. It is an agreement to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, the full text of - which can be found in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Code without a - proper signoff cannot be merged into the mainline. + which can be found in :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` + Code without a proper signoff cannot be merged into the mainline. + + - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by several developers; + it is a used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author + attributed by the From: tag) when multiple people work on a single patch. + Every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a Signed-off-by: of + the associated co-author. Details and examples can be found in + :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`. - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for @@ -221,19 +249,33 @@ The tags in common use are: it to work. - Reviewed-by: the named developer has reviewed the patch for correctness; - see the reviewer's statement in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for more - detail. + see the reviewer's statement in :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` + for more detail. - Reported-by: names a user who reported a problem which is fixed by this patch; this tag is used to give credit to the (often underappreciated) people who test our code and let us know when things do not work - correctly. + correctly. Note, this tag should be followed by a Closes: tag pointing to + the report, unless the report is not available on the web. The Link: tag + can be used instead of Closes: if the patch fixes a part of the issue(s) + being reported. + + - A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person + named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. This will, hopefully, + inspire them to help us again in the future. - Cc: the named person received a copy of the patch and had the opportunity to comment on it. -Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches: only Cc: is appropriate -for addition without the explicit permission of the person named. +Be careful in the addition of the aforementioned tags to your patches, as all +except for Cc:, Reported-by:, and Suggested-by: need explicit permission of the +person named. For those three implicit permission is sufficient if the person +contributed to the Linux kernel using that name and email address according +to the lore archives or the commit history -- and in case of Reported-by: +and Suggested-by: did the reporting or suggestion in public. Note, +bugzilla.kernel.org is a public place in this sense, but email addresses +used there are private; so do not expose them in tags, unless the person +used them in earlier contributions. Sending the patch @@ -248,8 +290,8 @@ take care of: be examined in any detail. If there is any doubt at all, mail the patch to yourself and convince yourself that it shows up intact. - Documentation/process/email-clients.rst has some helpful hints on making - specific mail clients work for sending patches. + :ref:`Documentation/process/email-clients.rst <email_clients>` has some + helpful hints on making specific mail clients work for sending patches. - Are you sure your patch is free of silly mistakes? You should always run patches through scripts/checkpatch.pl and address the complaints it |