diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/submittingpatches.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/submittingpatches.html | 309 |
1 files changed, 309 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/submittingpatches.html b/docs/submittingpatches.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..77b870a1308 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/submittingpatches.html @@ -0,0 +1,309 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> + <title>Submitting patches</title> + <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="mesa.css"> +</head> +<body> + +<div class="header"> + <h1>The Mesa 3D Graphics Library</h1> +</div> + +<iframe src="contents.html"></iframe> +<div class="content"> + +<h1>Submitting patches</h1> + + +<ul> +<li><a href="#guidelines">Basic guidelines</a> +<li><a href="#formatting">Patch formatting</a> +<li><a href="#testing">Testing Patches</a> +<li><a href="#mailing">Mailing Patches</a> +<li><a href="#reviewing">Reviewing Patches</a> +<li><a href="#nominations">Nominating a commit for a stable branch</a> +<li><a href="#criteria">Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch</a> +</ul> + +<h2 id="guidelines">Basic guidelines</h2> + +<ul> +<li>Patches should not mix code changes with code formatting changes (except, +perhaps, in very trivial cases.) +<li>Code patches should follow Mesa +<a href="codingstyle.html" target="_parent">coding conventions</a>. +<li>Whenever possible, patches should only effect individual Mesa/Gallium +components. +<li>Patches should never introduce build breaks and should be bisectable (see +<code>git bisect</code>.) +<li>Patches should be properly <a href="#formatting">formatted</a>. +<li>Patches should be sufficiently <a href="#testing">tested</a> before submitting. +<li>Patches should be submitted to <a href="#mailing">submitted to mesa-dev</a> +for <a href="#reviewing">review</a> using <code>git send-email</code>. + +</ul> + +<h2 id="formatting">Patch formatting</h2> + +<ul> +<li>Lines should be limited to 75 characters or less so that git logs +displayed in 80-column terminals avoid line wrapping. Note that git +log uses 4 spaces of indentation (4 + 75 < 80). +<li>The first line should be a short, concise summary of the change prefixed +with a module name. Examples: +<pre> + mesa: Add support for querying GL_VERTEX_ATTRIB_ARRAY_LONG + + gallium: add PIPE_CAP_DEVICE_RESET_STATUS_QUERY + + i965: Fix missing type in local variable declaration. +</pre> +<li>Subsequent patch comments should describe the change in more detail, +if needed. For example: +<pre> + i965: Remove end-of-thread SEND alignment code. + + This was present in Eric's initial implementation of the compaction code + for Sandybridge (commit 077d01b6). There is no documentation saying this + is necessary, and removing it causes no regressions in piglit on any + platform. +</pre> +<li>A "Signed-off-by:" line is not required, but not discouraged either. +<li>If a patch address a bugzilla issue, that should be noted in the +patch comment. For example: +<pre> + Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89689 +</pre> +<li>If there have been several revisions to a patch during the review +process, they should be noted such as in this example: +<pre> + st/mesa: add ARB_texture_stencil8 support (v4) + + if we support stencil texturing, enable texture_stencil8 + there is no requirement to support native S8 for this, + the texture can be converted to x24s8 fine. + + v2: fold fixes from Marek in: + a) put S8 last in the list + b) fix renderable to always test for d/s renderable + fixup the texture case to use a stencil only format + for picking the format for the texture view. + v3: hit fallback for getteximage + v4: put s8 back in front, it shouldn't get picked now (Ilia) +</pre> +<li>If someone tested your patch, document it with a line like this: +<pre> + Tested-by: Joe Hacker <[email protected]> +</pre> +<li>If the patch was reviewed (usually the case) or acked by someone, +that should be documented with: +<pre> + Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <[email protected]> + Acked-by: Joe Hacker <[email protected]> +</pre> +</ul> + + + +<h2 id="testing">Testing Patches</h2> + +<p> +It should go without saying that patches must be tested. In general, +do whatever testing is prudent. +</p> + +<p> +You should always run the Mesa test suite before submitting patches. +The test suite can be run using the 'make check' command. All tests +must pass before patches will be accepted, this may mean you have +to update the tests themselves. +</p> + +<p> +Whenever possible and applicable, test the patch with +<a href="http://piglit.freedesktop.org">Piglit</a> and/or +<a href="https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/deqp/">dEQP</a> +to check for regressions. +</p> + + +<h2 id="mailing">Mailing Patches</h2> + +<p> +Patches should be sent to the mesa-dev mailing list for review: +<a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev"> [email protected]<a/>. +When submitting a patch make sure to use +<a href="https://git-scm.com/docs/git-send-email">git send-email</a> +rather than attaching patches to emails. Sending patches as +attachments prevents people from being able to provide in-line review +comments. +</p> + +<p> +When submitting follow-up patches you can use --in-reply-to to make v2, v3, +etc patches show up as replies to the originals. This usually works well +when you're sending out updates to individual patches (as opposed to +re-sending the whole series). Using --in-reply-to makes +it harder for reviewers to accidentally review old patches. +</p> + +<p> +When submitting follow-up patches you should also login to +<a href="https://patchwork.freedesktop.org">patchwork</a> and change the +state of your old patches to Superseded. +</p> + +<h2 id="reviewing">Reviewing Patches</h2> + +<p> +When you've reviewed a patch on the mailing list, please be unambiguous +about your review. That is, state either +<pre> + Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <[email protected]> +</pre> +or +<pre> + Acked-by: Joe Hacker <[email protected]> +</pre> +Rather than saying just "LGTM" or "Seems OK". +</p> + +<p> +If small changes are suggested, it's OK to say something like: +<pre> + With the above fixes, Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <[email protected]> +</pre> +which tells the patch author that the patch can be committed, as long +as the issues are resolved first. +</p> + + +<h2 id="nominations">Nominating a commit for a stable branch</h2> + +<p> +If you want a commit to be applied to a stable branch, +you should add an appropriate note to the commit message. +</p> + +<p> +Here are some examples of such a note: +</p> +<ul> + <li>CC: <[email protected]></li> + <li>CC: "9.2 10.0" <[email protected]></li> + <li>CC: "10.0" <[email protected]></li> +</ul> + +Simply adding the CC to the mesa-stable list address is adequate to nominate +the commit for the most-recently-created stable branch. It is only necessary +to specify a specific branch name, (such as "9.2 10.0" or "10.0" in the +examples above), if you want to nominate the commit for an older stable +branch. And, as in these examples, you can nominate the commit for the older +branch in addition to the more recent branch, or nominate the commit +exclusively for the older branch. + +This "CC" syntax for patch nomination will cause patches to automatically be +copied to the mesa-stable@ mailing list when you use "git send-email" to send +patches to the mesa-dev@ mailing list. Also, if you realize that a commit +should be nominated for the stable branch after it has already been committed, +you can send a note directly to the [email protected] where +the Mesa stable-branch maintainers will receive it. Be sure to mention the +commit ID of the commit of interest (as it appears in the mesa master branch). + +The latest set of patches that have been nominated, accepted, or rejected for +the upcoming stable release can always be seen on the +<a href="http://cworth.org/~cworth/mesa-stable-queue/">Mesa Stable Queue</a> +page. + +<h2 id="criteria">Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch</h2> + +Mesa has a designated release manager for each stable branch, and the release +manager is the only developer that should be pushing changes to these +branches. Everyone else should simply nominate patches using the mechanism +described above. + +The stable-release manager will work with the list of nominated patches, and +for each patch that meets the crtieria below will cherry-pick the patch with: +<code>git cherry-pick -x <commit></code>. The <code>-x</code> option is +important so that the picked patch references the comit ID of the original +patch. + +The stable-release manager may at times need to force-push changes to the +stable branches, for example, to drop a previously-picked patch that was later +identified as causing a regression). These force-pushes may cause changes to +be lost from the stable branch if developers push things directly. Consider +yourself warned. + +The stable-release manager is also given broad discretion in rejecting patches +that have been nominated for the stable branch. The most basic rule is that +the stable branch is for bug fixes only, (no new features, no +regressions). Here is a non-exhaustive list of some reasons that a patch may +be rejected: + +<ul> + <li>Patch introduces a regression. Any reported build breakage or other + regression caused by a particular patch, (game no longer work, piglit test + changes from PASS to FAIL), is justification for rejecting a patch.</li> + + <li>Patch is too large, (say, larger than 100 lines)</li> + + <li>Patch is not a fix. For example, a commit that moves code around with no + functional change should be rejected.</li> + + <li>Patch fix is not clearly described. For example, a commit message + of only a single line, no description of the bug, no mention of bugzilla, + etc.</li> + + <li>Patch has not obviously been reviewed, For example, the commit message + has no Reviewed-by, Signed-off-by, nor Tested-by tags from anyone but the + author.</li> + + <li>Patch has not already been merged to the master branch. As a rule, bug + fixes should never be applied first to a stable branch. Patches should land + first on the master branch and then be cherry-picked to a stable + branch. (This is to avoid future releases causing regressions if the patch + is not also applied to master.) The only things that might look like + exceptions would be backports of patches from master that happen to look + significantly different.</li> + + <li>Patch depends on too many other patches. Ideally, all stable-branch + patches should be self-contained. It sometimes occurs that a single, logical + bug-fix occurs as two separate patches on master, (such as an original + patch, then a subsequent fix-up to that patch). In such a case, these two + patches should be squashed into a single, self-contained patch for the + stable branch. (Of course, if the squashing makes the patch too large, then + that could be a reason to reject the patch.)</li> + + <li>Patch includes new feature development, not bug fixes. New OpenGL + features, extensions, etc. should be applied to Mesa master and included in + the next major release. Stable releases are intended only for bug fixes. + + Note: As an exception to this rule, the stable-release manager may accept + hardware-enabling "features". For example, backports of new code to support + a newly-developed hardware product can be accepted if they can be reasonably + determined to not have effects on other hardware.</li> + + <li>Patch is a performance optimization. As a rule, performance patches are + not candidates for the stable branch. The only exception might be a case + where an application's performance was recently severely impacted so as to + become unusable. The fix for this performance regression could then be + considered for a stable branch. The optimization must also be + non-controversial and the patches still need to meet the other criteria of + being simple and self-contained</li> + + <li>Patch introduces a new failure mode (such as an assert). While the new + assert might technically be correct, for example to make Mesa more + conformant, this is not the kind of "bug fix" we want in a stable + release. The potential problem here is that an OpenGL program that was + previously working, (even if technically non-compliant with the + specification), could stop working after this patch. So that would be a + regression that is unaacceptable for the stable branch.</li> +</ul> + + +</div> +</body> +</html> |