unofficial mirror of libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>,
	 Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>,
	 Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>,
	 Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
	 GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: Changes to "Contribution Checklist" -- Format of the contribution.
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:41:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ftspjkao.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <29a94078-d05d-e29c-8009-e905bfb2bf31@redhat.com> (Carlos O'Donell's message of "Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:17:21 -0500")

* Carlos O'Donell:

> Proposed:
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist%20v2
> - Shorter. All version specific information moved out to
>   "Legacy Contributions" page.
> - Streamlined. Steps in order of relevance and patch creation
>   process.
> - Focus on getting full patches via `git format-patch` from
>   developers, and thus making review easy.
> - Suggest use of 8< to split discussion from patch
>   (see git-mailinfo).
> - Fixed up any old information.

Thanks for doing this.  Here are my comments.

* Bugzilla Entry

I find this confusing.  I think we call those “bugs”, not “entries”.

| If your contribution fixes a user-visible issue it must have a
| bugzilla entry.

User-visible issue *in a released version*, I think.  It also makes
sense to file bugs for issues discovered during

: If your contribution fixes a user-visible defect present in a released
: glibc version (or has been discovered during a release freeze), it
: must reference a bug in Bugzilla.  Please also reference any bug that
: has been filed even if it is not strictly needed by the preceding rule
: (e.g., if the change concerns an enhancement, not a defect).

Please capitalize “Bugzilla” consistently.

* General Patch Requirements

I think we are mixing what should be in the posted email with what
should go into the actual commit.  E.g., should test reports be in the
commit message or not?  There are also general development instructions
(such as identifying related changes).

I think this would be improved by separating the three steps: patch
development, testing, commit formatting, and mailing list posting.

I don't think we should suggest that scripts/build-many-glibcs.py
improves a contribution.  Not everyone will be able to run it.

* Proper Formatted Unified diff of the Changes

Suggest addition:

: Make sure that your commit is on top of a commit which is already in
: the public Git tree, so that your collaborators can apply it using
: `git am -3`.

(Otherwise the command will likely fail.)

* Contribution Email Subject Line

This is not followed at all, so I think we can substantially consolidate
this section.

This section should be titled “Commit subject line”, which is what the
developer will actually produce before posting to the list, and come
earlier in the checklist (after development/testing).

Suggest instead:

: The first line of the commit message should contain the following:
: 
: * Subsystem (`argp`, `malloc`, etc., generally a directory name in the
:   source tree), kernel (`Linux` or `Hurd`), or architecture (e.g., `x86`
:   for all three variants).  This can be omitted for generic changes
:   that do not fit to a particular subsystem.
: * A colon (`:`), if the first field is present.
: * A brief summary of the change (~50 characters long).
: * The referenced bug(s) in Bugzilla (separated by a space from the
:   previous).
: 
: Here a some examples of commit subjects:
:
: * `nss: Add tst-nss-files-hosts-long test [BZ #21915]`
: * `powerpc: Fix VSCR position in ucontext (bug 24088)`
: * `Add fall-through comments.`

* Contribution Email Body

These conflicts with the `git format-patch` recommendation.  We should
describe two ways of posting `git am`-consumable patches:

* `git format-patch` output with manual edits in the ignored places.
* `git format-patch` output posted as an attachment.

I don't know if we can get `git am` to automatically detect which case
is which.

* Attribution

I still think we should ban `Signed-off-by` because it seems to imply
that the submission is *not* subject to the FSF copyright assignment.

We need to distinguish between authors and entities with copyright
ownership.  Only the latter need to be identified.

I also suggests this change:

: "Contributed by" statements *in source code comments* are no longer
: required or desired in glibc source files (though existing statements
: will remain).

This should probably go under the development section, though.

Thanks,
Florian

  reply	other threads:[~2019-02-15 12:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-13 21:33 Changes to "Contribution Checklist" -- Format of the contribution Carlos O'Donell
2019-02-13 22:19 ` Paul Eggert
2019-02-13 23:00 ` Joseph Myers
2019-02-14  0:11   ` Carlos O'Donell
2019-02-14  1:38     ` Joseph Myers
2019-02-14  9:58 ` Florian Weimer
2019-02-14 17:32   ` Joseph Myers
2019-02-15 11:54     ` Florian Weimer
2019-02-14 20:17   ` Carlos O'Donell
2019-02-15 12:41     ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2019-02-15 13:53       ` Joseph Myers
2019-03-13 15:47         ` Florian Weimer
2019-03-13 21:35           ` Joseph Myers
2019-03-13 21:40             ` Carlos O'Donell
2019-03-13 22:02               ` Florian Weimer
2019-03-24 17:18                 ` Gabriel F. T. Gomes
2019-03-13 21:54             ` Florian Weimer
2019-03-13 18:22       ` Carlos O'Donell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/involved.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87ftspjkao.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com \
    --to=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
    --cc=carlos@redhat.com \
    --cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=schwab@suse.de \
    --cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).