[libvirt] [PATCH] docs: Improve patch submission guidelines
Michal Privoznik
mprivozn at redhat.com
Mon Jul 9 08:39:52 UTC 2012
On 09.07.2012 10:33, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 10:15:28AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> We should really advise (new) developers to send rebased patches
>> that apply cleanly and use git-send-email rather than all other
>> obscure ways.
>> ---
>> docs/hacking.html.in | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/docs/hacking.html.in b/docs/hacking.html.in
>> index 89f9980..96859fd 100644
>> --- a/docs/hacking.html.in
>> +++ b/docs/hacking.html.in
>> @@ -11,19 +11,43 @@
>>
>> <li><p>Post patches in unified diff format. A command similar to this
>> should work:</p>
>> -<pre>
>> +<del><pre>
>> diff -urp libvirt.orig/ libvirt.modified/ > libvirt-myfeature.patch
>> -</pre>
>> +</pre></del>
>> <p>
>> or:
>> </p>
>> <pre>
>> git diff > libvirt-myfeature.patch
>> </pre>
>> + However, the usual workflow of libvirt developer is:
>> +<pre>
>> + git checkout master
>> + git pull
>> + git checkout -b workbranch
>> + Hack, committing any changes along the way
>> +</pre>
>> + Then, when you want to post your patches:
>> +<pre>
>> + git checkout master
>> + git pull
>> + git checkout workbranch
>> + git rebase master
>> + (fix any conflicts)
>> + git send-email --compose --to=libvir-list at redhat.com master
>> +</pre>
>
> Add '--no-chain-reply-to' here :-)
Fixed on local branch.
>
> Don't you need 'master..' rather than just 'master' ?
No.
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list