[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v1 2/3] doc/developer.texi: Restructured "Submitting patches" section.

[Nicolas George]

Manolis Stamatogiannakis (12020-07-05):
> - Main text split to two sections.
> - Detailed checklist for new codecs or formats demoted to section.
> - Detailed checklist for patch submission demoted to section.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manolis Stamatogiannakis <mstamat at gmail.com>
> ---
>  doc/developer.texi | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/developer.texi b/doc/developer.texi
> index dec27cb509..6d4f6afcf9 100644
> --- a/doc/developer.texi
> +++ b/doc/developer.texi
> @@ -457,31 +457,49 @@ Finally, keep in mind the immortal words of Bill and Ted,
>  @anchor{Submitting patches}
>  @chapter Submitting patches
>  
> -First, read the @ref{Coding Rules} above if you did not yet, in particular
> + at anchor{patch guidelines}
> + at section Guidelines for preparing a patch
> +
> +The @strong{absolute minimum} you have to do before submitting a patch are the
> +following:
> +
> + at enumerate
> + at item Carefully read the @ref{Coding Rules} above if you did not yet, in particular
>  the rules regarding patch submission.
>  
> -When you submit your patch, please use @code{git format-patch} or
> - at code{git send-email}. We cannot read other diffs :-).
> + at item Make sure your commit messages accurately describe the changes made
> +(e.g. 'replaces lrint by lrintf') and why these changes are made (e.g.
> +'*BSD isn't C99 compliant and has no lrint()').
>  
> -Also please do not submit a patch which contains several unrelated changes.
> -Split it into separate, self-contained pieces. This does not mean splitting
> -file by file. Instead, make the patch as small as possible while still
> -keeping it as a logical unit that contains an individual change, even
> -if it spans multiple files. This makes reviewing your patches much easier
> -for us and greatly increases your chances of getting your patch applied.
> + at item Make sure you use @code{git format-patch} or @code{git send-email} to prepare
> +your patch. We cannot read other diffs :-).
> +
> + at item Run the @ref{Regression tests, regression tests} before submitting a patch
> +in order to verify it does not cause unexpected problems.
>  
> -Use the patcheck tool of FFmpeg to check your patch.
> -The tool is located in the tools directory.

> + at item If you send your patches with an external email client
> +(i.e. not @code{git send-email}), make sure to send each patch as a separate
> +email. Do not attach several patches to the same email!

This is a new rule, it did not exist before, and I see little value in
it except making Patchwork happy.

>  
> -Run the @ref{Regression tests} before submitting a patch in order to verify
> -it does not cause unexpected problems.
> + at item Do not submit a patch which contains several unrelated changes.
> + at end enumerate
> +

> +Additionally, it is also important that the commits comprising a patch
> +are logically self-contained. I.e. each commit should be as small as

Uh? Are you making a distinction between commits and patches? So, can we
have a single patch with several commits in one mail?

Or maybe the accurate wording is just not consistent.

> +possible while still containing a meaningful individual change.
> +Commits spanning multiple files are perfectly fine, as long as the
> +commit can be seen as a single logical unit.
>  
> -It also helps quite a bit if you tell us what the patch does (for example
> -'replaces lrint by lrintf'), and why (for example '*BSD isn't C99 compliant
> -and has no lrint()')
> +Following these guidelines makes reviewing your patches much easier
> +for us and greatly increases your chances of getting your patch applied.
> +To further reduce the chance that you will need to revise your patch,
> +it is also recommended to go through the detailed
> + at ref{patch submission checklist, patch} and
> + at ref{new codec format checklist, new codec or format}
> +checklists.
>  
> -Also please if you send several patches, send each patch as a separate mail,
> -do not attach several unrelated patches to the same mail.
> + at anchor{patch submission process}
> + at section Patch submission and revision process
>  
>  Patches should be posted to the
>  @uref{https://lists.ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel, ffmpeg-devel}
> @@ -511,7 +529,8 @@ Additionally, it is recommended to register for a
>  This will allow you to mark previous version of your patches as "Superseded",
>  and reduce the chance of someone spending time to review a stale patch.
>  
> - at chapter New codecs or formats checklist
> + at anchor{new codec format checklist}
> + at section New codecs or formats checklist
>  
>  @enumerate
>  @item
> @@ -563,7 +582,8 @@ Did you make sure it compiles standalone, i.e. with
>  @end enumerate
>  
>  
> - at chapter Patch submission checklist
> + at anchor{patch submission checklist}
> + at section Patch submission checklist
>  
>  @enumerate
>  @item
> @@ -592,6 +612,10 @@ of @dfn{sign-off}.
>  @item
>  Did you provide a clear git commit log message?
>  
> + at item
> +Did you use the @code{patcheck} tool of FFmpeg to check your patch
> +for common issues? E.g. @code{tools/patcheck *.patch}.
> +
>  @item
>  Is the patch against latest FFmpeg git master branch?
>  

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20200707/2b88149a/attachment.sig>