Signed-off-by: My Name <email@example.com>在此写下您的真实姓名和真实的电子邮件地址。请阅读 第11章：Linux内核补丁指南了解您在留下这句话时所声明满足的义务。
git commit --signoff
git config --global user.name "my name" git config --global user.email "firstname.lastname@example.org"
Read Submit Checklist for a list of items to check before submitting code.
For patches against external package sources, refer to the quilt howto at use-patches-with-buildsystem
Please read Email clients for patches to find out how to make sure your email client doesn't destroy your 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. Make 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:
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'll be commented upon, and committed into trunk at some point.
Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes.
Be as specific as possible. The WORST descriptions possible include things like “changes for package X”, “bug fix for package X”, or “this patch includes updates for platform X. Please apply.”
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.
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.
Check your patch for basic style violations. Failure to do so simply wastes the reviewer's time and will get your patch rejected, probably without even being read.
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 primary OpenWrt developer's mailing list. Most OpenWrt developers monitor this email list, and can comment on your changes.
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 “quote” your changes, using standard email tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code.
For this reason, all patches should be submitting email “inline”. WARNING: Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch, if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
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 Plain text email - Thunderbird disable flowed text
Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some maintainers. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size, it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch.
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't appear in the source code management system, there could be any number of reasons. It's YOUR job to narrow down those reasons, correct what was wrong, and submit your updated change.
Sometimes, developers may “drop” your patch with or without comment. That's the nature of the system. If your patch is dropped, it could be due to:
When in doubt, solicit comments on openwrt-devel mailing list.
Due to high email traffic to openwrt-devel, it is common convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH]. This lets OpenWrt developers more easily distinguish patches from other email discussions, and will also make its way to the patchwork automatically.
To provide tracking of who did what, we use a “sign-off” procedure on patches that are being emailed around.
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's Certificate of Origin 1.1 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, whether created in whole or in part 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
Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <email@example.com>
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'. If you stick strictly to rule ©, you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :
Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <firstname.lastname@example.org> [email@example.com: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h] Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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's identity (the From header), as it is the one which appears in the changelog.
Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practise to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance:
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:
git commit -s
The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
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's changelog.
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:. It is a record that the acker has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's “yep, looks good to me” into an Acked-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's code. Judgment should be used here.
If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not provided such comments, you may optionally add a “Cc:” tag to the patch. This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the person it names. This tag documents that potentially interested parties have been included in the discussion.
If this patch fixes a problem reported by somebody else, consider adding a Reported-by: tag to credit the reporter for their contribution. Please note that this tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the problem was not reported in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit our bug reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the future.
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:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
Reviewer's statement of oversight By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that: (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's response to my comments. (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: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally increase the likelihood of your patch getting into OpenWrt.
The canonical patch subject line is:
Subject: [PATCH 001/123] [section] summary phrase
The canonical patch message body contains the following:
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 numerical and alphabetic sort is the same.
The “section” in the email's Subject should identify which section of OpenWrt is being patched. Some example sections are:
The “summary phrase” in the email's Subject should concisely describe the patch which that email contains. The “summary phrase” should not be a filename. Do not use the same “summary phrase” for every patch in a whole patch series (where a “patch series” is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches).
Bear in mind that the “summary phrase” of your email becomes a globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the way into the source code management system changelog. The “summary phrase” may later be used in developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to google for the “summary phrase” to read discussion regarding that patch. It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see when, two or three months later, they are going through perhaps thousands of patches using source code management browsing tools.
For these reasons, the “summary” must be no more than 70-75 characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both succinct and descriptive, but that is what a well-written summary should do.
The “summary phrase” may be prefixed by tags enclosed in square brackets: “Subject: [PATCH tag] <summary phrase>”. The tags are not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch should be treated. Common tags might include a version descriptor if the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to comments (i.e., “v1, v2, v3”), or “RFC” to indicate a request for comments. If there are four patches in a patch series the individual patches may be numbered like this: 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4. This assures that developers understand the order in which the patches should be applied and that they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in the patch series.
Some example Subjects:
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 “from” line must be the very first line in the message body, and has the form:
From: Original Author <email@example.com>
The “from” line specifies who will be credited as the author of the patch in the permanent changelog. If the “from” line is missing, then the “From:” line from the email header will be used to determine the patch author in the changelog.
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 “summary phrase”, it is important to be both succinct as well as descriptive.
--- marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch handling tools where the changelog message ends.
One good use for the additional comments after the
--- marker is for a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of inserted and deleted lines per file. A diffstat is especially useful on bigger patches. Other comments relevant only to the moment or the maintainer, not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go here. A good example of such comments might be “patch changelogs” which describe what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the patch.
See more details on the proper patch format in the following References.