Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
| submitting-patches [2019/03/23 15:17] – [Working with Github] split to its own article bobafetthotmail | submitting-patches [2024/06/17 08:59] – old revision restored (2024/01/03 07:44) svanheule | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Submitting patches ====== | ====== Submitting patches ====== | ||
| + | See also: | ||
| + | * [[docs: | ||
| + | * If you are using GitHub, read also [[docs: | ||
| - | See first [[docs: | + | =====Deciding where to send the patch===== |
| + | * **Patches to core packages and patches that add support for new devices** (i.e. code that is in [[https:// | ||
| - | Patches can be submitted | + | * **Patches |
| - | Submissions | + | * **Patches for community packages about routing** |
| - | * use a different git branch | + | * **Patches |
| - | * write commit subject and message | + | * **Patches for miscellaneous community packages** should go as a Github PR in the [[https:// |
| + | <WRAP round info 60%> | ||
| + | **If you want to add a new package that is not specific for a device** nor crucial to compile or use OpenWrt on a device, (i.e. tools, compilers, runtimes libraries, VPNs, media servers, backup servers and more), **open a PR in the appropriate community packages repository mentioned above.** Note that if you add a package you usually must assign yourself as " | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Submission Guidelines ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Submissions should follow the following guidelines: | ||
| + | * use a different git branch for each pull request (GitHub does this automatically when using web interface) | ||
| + | * write commit subject and message in the imperative form: "add support for X", NOT "added support for X" | ||
| * **code formatting** | * **code formatting** | ||
| * use the same indentation you find in the file you are modifying, use only tabs or only spaces depending on what was done in the rest of the file | * use the same indentation you find in the file you are modifying, use only tabs or only spaces depending on what was done in the rest of the file | ||
| Line 33: | Line 47: | ||
| * If you add support for new hardware: Include in your commit message a short description of the hardware and how to install OpenWrt on it. Have a look at the [[https:// | * If you add support for new hardware: Include in your commit message a short description of the hardware and how to install OpenWrt on it. Have a look at the [[https:// | ||
| - | * **all commits must contain '' | + | * **all commits must contain '' |
| - | * it can be done automatically by git commandline with: < | + | * GitHub web interface or GUI application for git: you must append the '' |
| + | * git command-line interface: | ||
| - | * the Author field **must** match the " | + | < |
| - | * if you are editing files and committing through GitHub, you must write your real name in the " | + | git commit |
| - | * if you are editing files and committing on your local PC, set your name and email with< | + | </ |
| - | git config | + | |
| - | git config --global user.email " | + | |
| + | * **the '' | ||
| + | * GitHub web interface: you must specify your real name in the '' | ||
| + | * git command-line interface: | ||
| + | <code bash> | ||
| + | git config --global user.name "my name" | ||
| + | git config --global user.email " | ||
| + | </ | ||
| - | ===== Sending patches by Email ===== | + | ===== Patch merging |
| - | + | ||
| - | Send an email to the [[https:// | + | |
| - | Using [[https:// | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ===== Squashing commits ===== | + | |
| - | Commits in a PR or sent by email should be about full changes you want to merge, not about fixing all issues the reviewers found in your original PR.\\ | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | So, there will come a time when you will need to either rewrite or squash your commits; so you end with a normal amount of true and sane commits. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Work with git commandline.\\ | + | |
| - | Change to your development folder.\\ | + | |
| - | Look at the branches you have with: < | + | |
| - | get something like:< | + | |
| - | best_code_update | + | |
| - | * master</ | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Switch to the your development branch for this PR with:< | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Look at the git log, so you can count the number of commits you want to squash ( the " | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Delete commits with:< | + | |
| - | (where X is the number of commits you want to delete, counted from the last commit), this will not change modified files, it will only delete the commits.\\ | + | |
| - | Add the files to git tracking again with:< | + | |
| - | and commit again with:< | + | |
| - | Send the updated branch over to github with: < | + | |
| - | and the commits in the PR will be updated automatically. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ==== Alternative squashing advice: ==== | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | You can use **interactive rebase** to combine, reorder and edit your commits and their commit messages, with:< | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ===== Patch Merging And Tree Life Cycle ===== | + | |
| We encourage frequent committers to host their own staging trees where they aggregate patches that they feel responsible for and/or ones that they created themselves. Once the tree has been reviewed and tested it can be proposed for inclusion in the master branch. | We encourage frequent committers to host their own staging trees where they aggregate patches that they feel responsible for and/or ones that they created themselves. Once the tree has been reviewed and tested it can be proposed for inclusion in the master branch. | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - Trees will be merged into master at any time | - Trees will be merged into master at any time | ||
| - Bug fixes can be merged into master directly | - Bug fixes can be merged into master directly | ||
| - PRs can be sent to the patches mailing list from any source and will always be considered for inclusion if the quality of the tree is good and format of submission is correct | - PRs can be sent to the patches mailing list from any source and will always be considered for inclusion if the quality of the tree is good and format of submission is correct | ||
| - Staging trees can be hosted as part of the projects git infrastructure, | - Staging trees can be hosted as part of the projects git infrastructure, | ||
| - | + | ===== Patch backports ===== | |
| - | ===== Patch Checklist | + | Backporting refers to applying changes to a stable (release) branch like for example **openwrt-23.05** from the **main** branch. Since new features are not added to stable branches, backported changes are generally bug fixes and security fixes only. The process is roughly following: |
| - | - Single commit ( multiple commits must first be squashed, as described | + | - Changes needs to be first applied into the **main** branch |
| + | - Afterwards those changes can be proposed to be applied into the stable (release) branch | ||
| + | When pulling the commits from the **main** branch, you need to use '' | ||
| + | <code bash> | ||
| + | $ git cherry-pick --signoff -x < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | ===== Patch checklist | ||
| + | - Single commit ( multiple commits must first be squashed, as described | ||
| - Subject < 50 characters | - Subject < 50 characters | ||
| - Blank line after subject | - Blank line after subject | ||
| Line 99: | Line 91: | ||
| - Sender/ | - Sender/ | ||
| - | ===== DTS Checklist | + | ===== DTS checklist |
| - Don't forget to add proper license, consider adding '' | - Don't forget to add proper license, consider adding '' | ||
| - Remove all ocurrencies of '' | - Remove all ocurrencies of '' | ||
| - If you're adding MTD flash layout, and you've '' | - If you're adding MTD flash layout, and you've '' | ||
| - | - If it's possible try to dedicate some of the LEDs for system status indication in [[https:// | + | - If it's possible try to dedicate some of the LEDs for system status indication in [[https:// |
| - The name of a node should reflect the function of the device and not its model. Examples for generic node names can be found in Section [[https:// | - The name of a node should reflect the function of the device and not its model. Examples for generic node names can be found in Section [[https:// | ||
| - Remove all [[https:// | - Remove all [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | An overview of non-mandatory guidelines for device support submissions is provided in [[docs: | ||
| + | ===== In-depth process of preparing and submitting code to OpenWrt ===== | ||
| + | Based on [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | OpenWrt is constantly being improved. We'd like as many people to contribute to this as we can get. If you find a change useful, by all means try to get it incorporated into the project. This should improve OpenWrt and it should help carry your changes forward into future versions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For a person or company who wishes to submit a change to OpenWrt, the process can sometimes be daunting if you're not familiar with "the system." | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is important to do all these steps repeatedly: | ||
| + | * Listen to what other people think. | ||
| + | * Explain what problem you are addressing and your proposed solution. | ||
| + | * Write useful patches including documentation. | ||
| + | * Test, test, test. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Where to listen and talk: | ||
| + | * Google to find things related to your problem | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * GitHub - https:// | ||
| + | * (archived) TRAC - https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Documentation ===== | ||
| + | It is often best to document what you are doing before you do it. The process of documentation often exposes possible improvements. Keep your documentation up to date. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Creating and sending your change ===== | ||
| + | Read [[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | For patches against external package sources, refer to the quilt howto at [[docs: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Please read [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 1. Creating a patch ===== | ||
| + | All changes to OpenWrt occur in the form of patches. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Patches should be based in the root trunk, not in any lower subdirectory. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Make sure your patch does not include any extra files which do not belong in a patch submission. | ||
| + | Be sure to review your patch **after** you have generated it, to ensure accuracy. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you may want to look into splitting them into individual patches which modify things in logical stages. | ||
| + | This will facilitate easier reviewing by other OpenWrt developers, which is very important if you want your patch to be accepted. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The tools you can use to create a patch, in order of preference, are: | ||
| + | * Git | ||
| + | * SVN | ||
| + | * diff | ||
| + | |||
| + | To ease integration of smaller patches into trunk, developers can also make pull-requests into the GitHub trunk tree - this is an addition over the earlier patchwork workflow. | ||
| + | Larger patches, or patches that require further discussion, should still be sent to the **openwrt-devel** list, where they' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 2. Describe your changes ===== | ||
| + | Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Be as specific as possible. The WORST descriptions possible include things like " | ||
| + | |||
| + | The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a form which can be used unmodified as a commit message for OpenWrt source code management system. See par.13, below. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch. See par.3, next. | ||
| + | |||
| + | When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the patch merger to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch. I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained. This benefits both the patch merger(s) and reviewers. Some reviewers probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If the patch fixes a logged bug trac entry, refer to that bug entry by number. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 3. Separate your changes ===== | ||
| + | Separate __logical changes__ into a single patch file. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and enhancements for a single package, separate those changes into two or more patches. | ||
| + | |||
| + | On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files, group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change is contained within a single patch. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be complete, that is OK. Simply note "this patch depends on patch X" in your patch description. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches, then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 4. Style check your changes ===== | ||
| + | Check your patch for basic style violations. Failure to do so simply wastes the reviewer' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 5. Select email destination ===== | ||
| + | Look in the Makefile if a MAINTAINER macro exists. If so, email that person. Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, always CC openwrt-devel <at> lists.openwrt.org. If no maintainer is listed, send your patch to the [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 6. No MIME, no links, no compression, | ||
| + | OpenWrt developers need to be able to read and comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for an OpenWrt developer to be able to " | ||
| + | |||
| + | For this reason, all patches should be submitting email " | ||
| + | |||
| + | Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not. Many popular email applications will not always transmit a MIME attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on your code. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask you to re-send them using MIME. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mozilla Thunderbird requires that you change email defaults to send plain text email. | ||
| + | read [[http:// | ||
| + | :!: disable flowed text | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 7. Email size ===== | ||
| + | Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some maintainers. If your patch, uncompressed, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 8. Remain objective, re-submit ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | It's nothing personal. Code should work well for its intended purpose and results should adhere to many standards and requirements, | ||
| + | |||
| + | After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait. If developers like your change and apply it, it will appear as new revision in the source code management system. | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, if your change doesn' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Sometimes, developers may " | ||
| + | * Your patch did not apply cleanly to the latest OpenWrt revision. | ||
| + | * Your patch was not sufficiently discussed on openwrt-devel. | ||
| + | * A style issue. | ||
| + | * An email formatting issue (re-read this section). | ||
| + | * A technical problem with your change. | ||
| + | * They get tons of email, and yours got lost in the shuffle. | ||
| + | * You are being annoying. | ||
| + | |||
| + | When in doubt, solicit comments on openwrt-devel mailing list. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 9. Include PATCH in the subject ===== | ||
| + | Due to high email traffic to openwrt-devel, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 10. Sign your work ===== | ||
| + | To provide tracking of who did what, we use a " | ||
| + | |||
| + | The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify the below: | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | Developer' | ||
| + | |||
| + | By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: | ||
| + | |||
| + | (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I | ||
| + | have the right to submit it under the open source license | ||
| + | indicated in the file; or | ||
| + | |||
| + | (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best | ||
| + | of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source | ||
| + | license and I have the right under that license to submit that | ||
| + | work with modifications, | ||
| + | by me, under the same open source license (unless I am | ||
| + | permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated | ||
| + | in the file; or | ||
| + | |||
| + | (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other | ||
| + | person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified | ||
| + | it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution | ||
| + | are public and that a record of the contribution (including all | ||
| + | personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is | ||
| + | maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with | ||
| + | this project or the open source license(s) involved. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | then you just add a line saying | ||
| + | |||
| + | <code bash> | ||
| + | Signed-off-by: | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | using your real name (no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | If you are a package or target maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not exactly the same in your tree and the submitters' | ||
| + | |||
| + | <code bash> | ||
| + | Signed-off-by: | ||
| + | [lucky@maintainer.example.org: | ||
| + | Signed-off-by: | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | This practice is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix, and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances can you change the author' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Special note to back-porters: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <code bash> | ||
| + | Date: Wed Jul 25 15:14:50 2012 +0300 | ||
| + | [generic] add missing symbols | ||
| + | [backport r12345] | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Whatever the format, this information provides valuable help to people tracking your trees, and to people trying to trouble-shoot bugs in your tree. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For the more convenient developers, git can automatically add a sign-off: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <code bash> | ||
| + | git commit -s | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 11. When to use " | ||
| + | The Signed-off-by: | ||
| + | |||
| + | If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. For example, if a patch affects multiple packages and has an Acked-by: from one package maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just the part which affects that maintainer' | ||
| + | |||
| + | If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not provided such comments, you may optionally add a " | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 12. Using " | ||
| + | If this patch fixes a problem reported by somebody else, consider adding a Reported-by: | ||
| + | |||
| + | A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for future patches, and ensures credit for the testers. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Reviewed-by:, | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | Reviewer' | ||
| + | |||
| + | By offering my Reviewed-by: | ||
| + | |||
| + | (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to | ||
| + | evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into | ||
| + | OpenWrt. | ||
| + | |||
| + | (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch | ||
| + | have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied | ||
| + | with the submitter' | ||
| + | |||
| + | (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this | ||
| + | submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a | ||
| + | worthwhile modification to OpenWrt, and (2) free of known | ||
| + | issues which would argue against its inclusion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I | ||
| + | do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any | ||
| + | warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated | ||
| + | purpose or function properly in any given situation. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an appropriate modification of OpenWrt without any remaining serious technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been done on the patch. Reviewed-by: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== 13. The canonical patch format ===== | ||
| + | The canonical patch subject line is: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <code bash> | ||
| + | Subject: [PATCH 001/123] [section] summary phrase | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | The canonical patch message body contains the following: | ||
| + | * A " | ||
| + | * An empty line. | ||
| + | * The body of the explanation, | ||
| + | * The " | ||
| + | * A marker line containing simply '' | ||
| + | * Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog. | ||
| + | * The actual patch (diff output). | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Subject line format makes it very easy to sort the emails alphabetically by subject line - pretty much any email reader will support that - since because the sequence number is zero-padded, | ||
| + | |||
| + | The " | ||
| + | * [a specific target name] | ||
| + | * [a specific package name] | ||
| + | |||
| + | The " | ||
| + | |||
| + | Bear in mind that the " | ||
| + | |||
| + | For these reasons, the " | ||
| + | |||
| + | The " | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some example Subjects: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <code bash> | ||
| + | Subject: [PATCH] e2fsprogs: Bump to 1.41.3 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Subject: [PATCH] x86 generic: switch to 3.3 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] ar71xx enable sysupgrade on the WRT160Nl | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | The " | ||
| + | |||
| + | <code bash> | ||
| + | From: Original Author < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | The " | ||
| + | |||
| + | The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long since forgotten the immediate details of the discussion that might have led to this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the patch addresses (kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) is especially useful for people who might be searching the commit logs looking for the applicable patch. If a patch fixes a compile failure, it may not be necessary to include _all_ of the compile failures; just enough that it is likely that someone searching for the patch can find it. As in the " | ||
| + | |||
| + | The '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | One good use for the additional comments after the '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | See more details on the proper patch format in the following References. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Monitoring patches ===== | ||
| + | Patches sent to the Development mailing list can be followed on Patchwork at [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== References ====== | ||
| + | * Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp). | ||
| + | * http:// | ||
| + | * Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format" | ||
| + | * http:// | ||
| + | * Greg Kroah-Hartman, | ||
| + | * http:// | ||
| + | * http:// | ||
| + | * http:// | ||
| + | * http:// | ||
| + | * http:// | ||
| + | * NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@… people! | ||
| + | * http:// | ||
| + | * Linus Torvalds' | ||
| + | * http:// | ||
| + | * Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches" | ||
| + | * Some strategies to get difficult or controversial changes in. | ||
| + | * http:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Additional information ===== | ||
| + | * Be aware of line length limit (80). | ||
| + | * Use '' | ||
| + | |||