This is the mail archive of the
libc-help@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Patch Submission Guidelines
- From: ricaljasan <ricaljasan at pacific dot net>
- To: libc-help at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 02:36:26 -0700
- Subject: Patch Submission Guidelines
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
As I prepare my patchset for the manual, I have a few questions about
how to format the submission.
It will be of the [PATCH M/N] form, one for each of the chapters. Is it
acceptable to use a lengthier and detailed description in 0/N that
covers everything in all the subsequent patches (these are all
grammar-related edits), and omit a description in each patch, leaving
only a title and consistent, terse summary? For example:
Grammatical edits to the Error Reporting chapter.
* manual/errno.texi: Edit grammar for clarity, consistency, and
correctness.
Also, are ChangeLog entries still necessary? I recall those being under
discussion[1,2,3] but am still unclear as to what ever truly became of
it. The Contribution checklist[4] mentions them, including the bit
about editing the file but putting the diff in the message body and not
the patch. I see a variety of formats used in practice from a cursory
look over the past week or so, but the most common appears to be:
----
Detailed message.
Some kind of header, possibly a name, subject, or date-name-email.
* list of changed files
Attached patch.
----
(with a notable lack of an explicit ChangeLog diff.) Perhaps there is a
preferred blend of git format-patch and send-email that will do the
right thing?
Thank you,
Rical
[1]: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-08/msg00889.html
[2]: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-06/msg00051.html
[3]: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-08/msg01279.html
[4]:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist#Properly_Formatted_GNU_ChangeLog