GNU bug report logs -
#43946
[PATCH] doc: Add item to "Submitting Patches" section.
Previous Next
Reported by: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:21:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Done: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 43946 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 43946 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43946
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:21:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
.
(Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:21:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
* doc/contributing.texi (Submitting Patches): Add item about 'git-format-patch
--base'.
---
doc/contributing.texi | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index af3601442e..5ea3cb1899 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -932,6 +932,12 @@ Before submitting a patch that adds or modifies a package definition,
please run through this check list:
@enumerate
+@cindex @code{git format-patch}
+@cindex @code{git-format-patch}
+@item
+We recommend to use the command @code{git format-patch --base} to
+include the commit where your patch applies.
+
@item
If the authors of the packaged software provide a cryptographic
signature for the release tarball, make an effort to verify the
base-commit: e746d30ec15852ec50e4247ea0a07ab2a9a69aa8
--
2.28.0
Reply sent
to
Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com>
:
You have taken responsibility.
(Sat, 24 Oct 2020 09:03:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Sat, 24 Oct 2020 09:03:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #10 received at 43946-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi,
zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> writes:
> * doc/contributing.texi (Submitting Patches): Add item about 'git-format-patch
> --base'.
> ---
> doc/contributing.texi | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
> index af3601442e..5ea3cb1899 100644
> --- a/doc/contributing.texi
> +++ b/doc/contributing.texi
> @@ -932,6 +932,12 @@ Before submitting a patch that adds or modifies a package definition,
> please run through this check list:
>
> @enumerate
> +@cindex @code{git format-patch}
> +@cindex @code{git-format-patch}
> +@item
> +We recommend to use the command @code{git format-patch --base} to
> +include the commit where your patch applies.
“git format-patch” already mentioned in the documentation in the first
paragraph https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Submitting-Patches.html
Do I miss something? Fill free to reopen the issue ;-)
Oleg.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43946
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Sat, 24 Oct 2020 09:18:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #13 received at 43946-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Dear,
Thank you for the review.
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 11:01, Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> > * doc/contributing.texi (Submitting Patches): Add item about 'git-format-patch
> > --base'.
> > ---
> > doc/contributing.texi | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
> > index af3601442e..5ea3cb1899 100644
> > --- a/doc/contributing.texi
> > +++ b/doc/contributing.texi
> > @@ -932,6 +932,12 @@ Before submitting a patch that adds or modifies a package definition,
> > please run through this check list:
> >
> > @enumerate
> > +@cindex @code{git format-patch}
> > +@cindex @code{git-format-patch}
> > +@item
> > +We recommend to use the command @code{git format-patch --base} to
> > +include the commit where your patch applies.
>
> “git format-patch” already mentioned in the documentation in the first
> paragraph https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Submitting-Patches.html
The point of the patch is:
- the addition of the cindex
- the addition of the option --base
and AFAITC it is not already in the manual. If it is the wrong place,
please let me know where it could be better.
All the best,
simon
Did not alter fixed versions and reopened.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sat, 24 Oct 2020 09:20:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43946
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:31:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #18 received at 43946 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Simon!
zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> skribis:
> * doc/contributing.texi (Submitting Patches): Add item about 'git-format-patch
> --base'.
> ---
> doc/contributing.texi | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
> index af3601442e..5ea3cb1899 100644
> --- a/doc/contributing.texi
> +++ b/doc/contributing.texi
> @@ -932,6 +932,12 @@ Before submitting a patch that adds or modifies a package definition,
> please run through this check list:
>
> @enumerate
> +@cindex @code{git format-patch}
> +@cindex @code{git-format-patch}
> +@item
> +We recommend to use the command @code{git format-patch --base} to
> +include the commit where your patch applies.
I’m not entirely convinced TBH, in part because I know I often pile a
couple of WIP branches on top of one another, “knowing what I’m doing”
(actually hoping that I do), and so the base commit would be useless in
this case.
Closing? :-)
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43946
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:01:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #21 received at 43946 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Ludo,
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 14:30, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> > +We recommend to use the command @code{git format-patch --base} to
> > +include the commit where your patch applies.
>
> I’m not entirely convinced TBH, in part because I know I often pile a
> couple of WIP branches on top of one another, “knowing what I’m doing”
> (actually hoping that I do), and so the base commit would be useless in
> this case.
I am not buying your argument. :-)
It is not because <name> does not use this information that it cannot
be a recommendation, i.e., a suggestion or advice on what seems
helpful.
Other said, it is not because it is "useless in this case" that it is
useless in other cases.
For example, this information about which known commit that patch
applies is helping for the automation of testing patches. Well, see
[1,2] for instance. Discussions of such tooling happened in #44625
[3] and Emacs helper [4].
1: <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/b4/b4.git/tree/README.rst>
2: <https://docs.kyleam.com/piem/Using-b4-to-apply-patches.html>
3: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/44625>
4: <https://inbox.kyleam.com/piem/20201115061518.22191-1-kyle <at> kyleam.com/>
> Closing? :-)
As you want. :-)
But, I think "qui peut le plus peut le moins". Even if maybe my
wording is not the good one, I still think that the "base-commit"
where the patch applies should be provided, at least suggested.
Cheers,
simon
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43946
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Fri, 26 Mar 2021 05:50:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #24 received at 43946 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Ludo,
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 15:00, zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 14:30, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> > +We recommend to use the command @code{git format-patch --base} to
>> > +include the commit where your patch applies.
>>
>> I’m not entirely convinced TBH, in part because I know I often pile a
>> couple of WIP branches on top of one another, “knowing what I’m doing”
>> (actually hoping that I do), and so the base commit would be useless in
>> this case.
[...]
>> Closing? :-)
>
> As you want. :-)
> But, I think "qui peut le plus peut le moins". Even if maybe my
> wording is not the good one, I still think that the "base-commit"
> where the patch applies should be provided, at least suggested.
I still think that recommending to provide the commit on which it is
known that the patch (or patch set) applies is a good recommendation.
Especially when the submission rate is greater than the review rate and
the tree is moving really quickly (yeah!).
It is no extra work for the submitter and really helps for the reviewer.
They applies at base-commit, checks, rebases and resolves conflicts if
they are. Otherwise, the patch is useless or it needs to be rewritten
by hand (or please indicate me how to do :-)).
BTW, it helps automation tools.
Sometimes, this base-commit is useless for the reviewer workflow but
having it does not interfere. Having an information does not mean it
must be used. However, not having an information implies it cannot be
used. ;-)
Cheers,
simon
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43946
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 21 Sep 2021 10:00:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #27 received at 43946 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Ludo,
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 14:30, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> * doc/contributing.texi (Submitting Patches): Add item about 'git-format-patch
>> --base'.
>> ---
>> doc/contributing.texi | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
>> index af3601442e..5ea3cb1899 100644
>> --- a/doc/contributing.texi
>> +++ b/doc/contributing.texi
>> @@ -932,6 +932,12 @@ Before submitting a patch that adds or modifies a package definition,
>> please run through this check list:
>>
>> @enumerate
>> +@cindex @code{git format-patch}
>> +@cindex @code{git-format-patch}
>> +@item
>> +We recommend to use the command @code{git format-patch --base} to
>> +include the commit where your patch applies.
>
> I’m not entirely convinced TBH, in part because I know I often pile a
> couple of WIP branches on top of one another, “knowing what I’m doing”
> (actually hoping that I do), and so the base commit would be useless in
> this case.
Could you explain more? Here [#,@], I argument:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
It is not because <name> does not use this information that it cannot be
a recommendation, i.e., a suggestion or advice on what seems helpful.
Other said, it is not because it is "useless in this case" that it
isuseless in other cases.
For example, this information about which known commit that patch
applies is helping for the automation of testing patches. Well,
see [1,2] for instance. Discussions of such tooling happened in
#44625 [3] and Emacs helper [4].
1: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/b4/b4.git/tree/README.rst
2: https://docs.kyleam.com/piem/Using-b4-to-apply-patches.html
3: http://issues.guix.gnu.org/44625
4: https://inbox.kyleam.com/piem/20201115061518.22191-1-kyle <at> kyleam.com/
[..]
I still think that recommending to provide the commit on which it
isknown that the patch (or patch set) applies is a good recommendation.
Especially when the submission rate is greater than the review rate
andthe tree is moving really quickly (yeah!).
It is no extra work for the submitter and really helps for the
reviewer. They applies at base-commit, checks, rebases and resolves
conflicts if they are. Otherwise, the patch is useless or it needs to
be rewritten by hand (or please indicate me how to do :-)).
BTW, it helps automation tools.
Sometimes, this base-commit is useless for the reviewer workflow but
having it does not interfere. Having an information does not mean it
must be used. However, not having an information implies it cannot be
used. ;-)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
#: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/43946#5>
@: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/43946#6>
Seeing the number of patches in the patch tracker, most of them does not
apply anymore. It is not encouraging to review and decrease the queue
when first the reviewer has to guess onto which commit the patch
applies.
Cheers,
simon
Reply sent
to
Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
:
You have taken responsibility.
(Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:04:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:04:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #32 received at 43946-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> skribis:
> Seeing the number of patches in the patch tracker, most of them does not
> apply anymore. It is not encouraging to review and decrease the queue
> when first the reviewer has to guess onto which commit the patch
> applies.
Yeah in hindsight I think I agree with you. I went ahead and (finally!)
applied the patch.
Thanks for persevering, and apologies for my stubbornness! :-)
Ludo’.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:24:08 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 159 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.