|
Size: 1779
Comment:
|
Size: 2847
Comment: reword and add some advice regarding the mailing list and irc channel
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| Matt is trying to streamline his fairly complex process of merging ["Patch"]es from the MailingList. So please try to do the following: |
["Mercurial"] development process resembles the one described in ["KernelPractice"]. As most free software projects, contributions and feedback are very welcome and even encouraged, but, to make easier to manage those contributions and keep a clean and maintainable code base, these contributions need to follow a review process before entering the main repo. |
| Line 6: | Line 5: |
| * Use {{{hg export}}} where possible. * This will get your name in the changelog without any extra editing on his part. * Make sure your description is complete. * If using {{{hg export}}}, he wants the description ''in the exported patch''. * Make sure your description starts with a reasonable one-line summary. * Send only one patch per email, as Matt's tools and processes assume this. |
These are some useful recommendations to increase your chances of getting your contributions accepted: * '''Make sure your description of what the patch addresses is complete'''. * If using {{{hg export}}}, add the ''description along with the exported patch''. * Make also sure your ''description starts with a reasonable one-line summary''. * '''Send your changes as ["Patch"]es to the ["MailingList"]''', so other people can comment on them and '''review''' what you're doing. * '''Use {{{hg export}}} or the {{{patchbomb}}} extension''' to create and send patches, where possible. * This will get your name in the changelog without any extra editing and, with {{{patchbomb}}}, email messages will be nicely formatted. * '''Send only one patch per email''', as some review tools and processes assume this. * '''Inline ["Patch"]es are preferable to MIME-attached copies of ["Patch"]es''', because many mailers cannot quote attachments. Inline patches are thus easier to review. Be warned that many mailers will by default screw up the white space of inline ["Patch"]es, so they will not apply cleanly. This is usually easy to work around, for example by using the {{{patchbomb}}} extension. * '''Make sure the ["Patch"]es apply cleanly against the current ["Tip"]''' (either the main or crew repositories are ok). * '''Each ["Patch"] should make sense in and of itself, and not contain pieces of unrelated stuff''' that you noticed and decided to fix up. * '''Follow the prevailing coding style''' in the code you're modifying, not what you think it ''ought'' to be. * Patches ''should not contain tab characters''. * Patches ''should not contain trailing white space''. * If you are ''cleaning up white space, do it in a self-contained patch'' that contains no functional changes. |
| Line 14: | Line 23: |
* In general, think of ["Mercurial"] as following a process similar to KernelPractice. * ["Serve"] a ["Repository"] over HTTP that contains your changes, so Matt only needs to ["Pull"] from it if he likes the changes. * Send your changes as ["Patch"]es to the MailingList anyway, so other people on the mailing list can review what you're doing. * If you are emailing a ["Patch"] directly to Matt, copy the MailingList. * Make sure the ["Patch"]es you send apply cleanly against the current ["Tip"]. * MIME-attached ["Patch"]es are preferable to cut-and-paste copies of ["Patch"]es, because many mailers will screw up the white space of inline ["Patch"]es, so they will not apply cleanly. * Each ["Patch"] should make sense in and of itself, and not contain pieces of unrelated stuff that you noticed and decided to fix up. * Follow the prevailing coding style in the code you're modifying, not what you think it ''ought'' to be. * Patches should not contain tab characters. * Patches should not contain trailing white space. * If you are cleaning up white space, do it in a self-contained patch that contains no functional changes. |
* '''Don't hesitate to resend your patches or ask for review''' if no answer comes from the mailing list after a while... people may be busy and your changes may have been overlooked. Contributions are considered very valuable and you can be sure they deserve at least a response. * '''Joining the IRC channel''' (#mercurial on irc.freenode.net) can be an effective way to get ''faster review and valuable initial feedback''. * You could ["Serve"] a ["Repository"] over HTTP that contains the changes. With it, Matt only needs to ["Pull"] from it if he likes the changes. |
Contributing changes to Mercurial
["Mercurial"] development process resembles the one described in ["KernelPractice"]. As most free software projects, contributions and feedback are very welcome and even encouraged, but, to make easier to manage those contributions and keep a clean and maintainable code base, these contributions need to follow a review process before entering the main repo.
These are some useful recommendations to increase your chances of getting your contributions accepted:
Make sure your description of what the patch addresses is complete.
If using hg export, add the description along with the exported patch.
Make also sure your description starts with a reasonable one-line summary.
Send your changes as ["Patch"]es to the ["MailingList"], so other people can comment on them and review what you're doing.
Use hg export or the patchbomb extension to create and send patches, where possible.
This will get your name in the changelog without any extra editing and, with patchbomb, email messages will be nicely formatted.
Send only one patch per email, as some review tools and processes assume this.
Inline ["Patch"]es are preferable to MIME-attached copies of ["Patch"]es, because many mailers cannot quote attachments. Inline patches are thus easier to review. Be warned that many mailers will by default screw up the white space of inline ["Patch"]es, so they will not apply cleanly. This is usually easy to work around, for example by using the patchbomb extension.
Make sure the ["Patch"]es apply cleanly against the current ["Tip"] (either the main or crew repositories are ok).
Each ["Patch"] should make sense in and of itself, and not contain pieces of unrelated stuff that you noticed and decided to fix up.
Follow the prevailing coding style in the code you're modifying, not what you think it ought to be.
Patches should not contain tab characters.
Patches should not contain trailing white space.
If you are cleaning up white space, do it in a self-contained patch that contains no functional changes.
Some other useful guidelines:
Don't hesitate to resend your patches or ask for review if no answer comes from the mailing list after a while... people may be busy and your changes may have been overlooked. Contributions are considered very valuable and you can be sure they deserve at least a response.
Joining the IRC channel (#mercurial on irc.freenode.net) can be an effective way to get faster review and valuable initial feedback.
- You could ["Serve"] a ["Repository"] over HTTP that contains the changes. With it, Matt only needs to ["Pull"] from it if he likes the changes.