On 7/04/2013 16:53, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
On 06.04.2013 20:08, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
As far as I'm aware, we don't really have much of a patch maintenance
policy in Gentoo. There a few loose rules like «don't put awfully big
files into FILESDIR» or the common sense «use unified diff», but no
complete and clear policy.
Especially considering the late discussion related to the needless
and semi-broken functionality in epatch, I'd like to propose
setting the following rules for patches in tree and in Gentoo-sourced
patchsets:
1. Patches have to be either in unified or context diff format. Unified
diff is preferred.
2. Patches have to apply to the top directory of the source tree with
'patch -p1'. If patches are applied to sub-directories, necessary '-p'
argument shall be passed to 'epatch' explicitly. Developers are
encouraged to create patches which are compatible with 'git am'.
3. Patches have to end with either '.patch' or '.diff' suffix.
4. If possible, patches shall be named in a way allowing them to be
applied in lexical order. However, this one isn't necessary if patches
from an older ebuild are applied to a newer one.
5. The patch name shall shortly summarize the changes done by it.
6. Patch files shall start with a brief description of what the patch
does. Developers are encouraged to use git-style tags like 'Fixes:' to
point to the relevant bug URIs.
7. Patch combining is discouraged. Developers shall prefer multiple
patches following either the upstream commits or a logical commit
sequence (if changes are not committed upstream).
The above-listed policy will apply to the patches kept in the gx86 tree
(in FILESDIRs) and patch archives created by Gentoo developers. They
will not apply to the patch archives created upstream.
Hi,
there's at least one guideline written by the Ancient Ones that I know
[1] It roughly follows the ideas that you've described. I think it'd be
enough if people read it and used as a suggestion not a strict ruling.
Imposing things like lexical order or git-style heading is a bit too
much for me
Do we really need rules for everything?
Cheers,
Kacper
[1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/clean-patches
We already have policy regarding patches[1], this just expands and
formalises it a bit more.
Regarding lexical order and git-style headings, my interpretation is
that this is a recommendation only. I don't think the intention is to
make you rebase complex patches needlessly.
vapier's clean-patches document is an informative read, but I don't
think devspace is a good method of disseminating of information that may
not necessarily reflect the reality of the project.
[1]:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/patches/index.html
