Document from line in patch format
PATCH 1/1 Document from line in patch format
Document more details of patch format such as the "from" line used to specify the patch author, and provide more references for patch guidelines.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches +48 -1
@@ -301,8 +301,47 @@ now, but you can do this to mark interna point out some special detail about the sign-off. +12) The canonical patch format -12) More references for submitting patches +The canonical patch subject line is: + + Subject: [PATCH 001/123] [<area>:] <explanation> + +The canonical patch message body contains the following: + + The first line of the body contains a "from" line specifying + the author of the patch: + + From: Original Author <[email protected]> + + If the "from" line is missing, then the author of the patch will + be recorded in the source code revision history as whomever is + listed in the last "Signed-off-by:" line in the message when Linus + receives it. + + The "from" line is followed by an empty line and then the body + of the explanation. + + After the body of the explanation comes the "Signed-off-by:" + lines, and then a simple "---" line, and below that comes the + diffstat of the patch and then the patch itself. The "---" line + and diffstat are optional, but helpful to readers of non-trivial + patches. + +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. + +See further details on how to phrase the "<explanation>" in +the "Subject:" line in Andrew Morton's "The perfect patch", +referenced below. + +See more details on the proper patch format in the following +references. + + +13) More references for submitting patches Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp). <http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt>
@@ -310,6 +349,14 @@ Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp) Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format." <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html> +Jeff Garzik, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer" + <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/03/31/> + +Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle + <http://lxr.linux.no/source/Documentation/CodingStyle> + +Linus Torvald's mail on the canonical patch format: + <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183> -----------------------------------
Signature · 3 lines
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.650.933.1373Quoted 21 lines · Paul Jackson
Document more details of patch format such as the "from" line used to specify the patch author, and provide more references for patch guidelines.
Signed-off-by Paul Jackson <[email protected]>Index: 2.6.14-rc2-mm2/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
===================================================================Documentation/SubmittingPatches +5
-1@@ -301,8 +301,47 @@ now, but you can do this to mark interna point out some special detail about the sign-off. +12) The canonical patch format -12) More references for submitting patches +The canonical patch subject line is: + + Subject: [PATCH 001/123] [<area>:] <explanation> +
Documentation/SubmittingPatches now, but you can do this to mark interna · line 319
Quoted 10 lines
Documentation/SubmittingPatches +10
-0+The canonical patch message body contains the following: + + The first line of the body contains a "from" line specifying + the author of the patch: + + From: Original Author <[email protected]> + + If the "from" line is missing, then the author of the patch will + be recorded in the source code revision history as whomever is + listed in the last "Signed-off-by:" line in the message when Linus
^^^^
Shouldn't this be the first?
Tony
Quoted 3 lines · Tony
Quoted 1 line
+ listed in the last "Signed-off-by:" line in the message when Linus
^^^^Shouldn't this be the first?
When I sent a patch with no "from" line, and two "Signed-off-by" lines (the patch that prompted this excursion into documentation excellence) Linus stated that the patch author ended up coming from the second "Signed-off-by" line.
Perhaps it "should" be the first (actually - I tend to agree), but it seems that it "is" the last.
Signature · 3 lines
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401Quoted 5 lines · Paul Jackson
Quoted 3 lines · Tony
Quoted 1 line
+ listed in the last "Signed-off-by:" line in the message when Linus
^^^^Shouldn't this be the first?
Quoted 7 lines
When I sent a patch with no "from" line, and two "Signed-off-by" lines (the patch that prompted this excursion into documentation excellence) Linus stated that the patch author ended up coming from the second "Signed-off-by" line.
Perhaps it "should" be the first (actually - I tend to agree), but it seems that it "is" the last.
No. If there is no "From:" at the top of the body, the authorship is taken from the "From:" from the _email_.
Which _usually_ matches the last Signed-off-line:, of course. But can be anything.
Linus
Quoted 2 lines · Linus
No. If there is no "From:" at the top of the body, the authorship is taken from the "From:" from the _email_.
So _that_ is the real reason it's called the "from" line, not the "author" line.
Now it is making more sense.
New patch v2 coming soon.
Signature · 3 lines
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401Quoted 60 lines · Paul Jackson
Document more details of patch format such as the "from" line used to specify the patch author, and provide more references for patch guidelines.
Signed-off-by Paul Jackson <[email protected]>Index: 2.6.14-rc2-mm2/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
===================================================================Documentation/SubmittingPatches +40
-1@@ -301,8 +301,47 @@ now, but you can do this to mark interna point out some special detail about the sign-off. +12) The canonical patch format -12) More references for submitting patches +The canonical patch subject line is: + + Subject: [PATCH 001/123] [<area>:] <explanation> + +The canonical patch message body contains the following: + + The first line of the body contains a "from" line specifying + the author of the patch: + + From: Original Author <[email protected]> + + If the "from" line is missing, then the author of the patch will + be recorded in the source code revision history as whomever is + listed in the last "Signed-off-by:" line in the message when Linus + receives it. + + The "from" line is followed by an empty line and then the body + of the explanation. + + After the body of the explanation comes the "Signed-off-by:" + lines, and then a simple "---" line, and below that comes the + diffstat of the patch and then the patch itself. The "---" line + and diffstat are optional, but helpful to readers of non-trivial + patches. + +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. + +See further details on how to phrase the "<explanation>" in +the "Subject:" line in Andrew Morton's "The perfect patch", +referenced below. + +See more details on the proper patch format in the following +references. + + +13) More references for submitting patches Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp). <http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt>
Documentation/SubmittingPatches Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp) · line 356
Quoted 8 lines
Documentation/SubmittingPatches +5
-0@@ -310,6 +349,14 @@ Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp) Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format." <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html> +Jeff Garzik, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer" + <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/03/31/> + +Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle + <http://lxr.linux.no/source/Documentation/CodingStyle>
There's another one more updated at http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/lxr/source/
Documentation/SubmittingPatches Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp) · line 360
Quoted 4 lines
Documentation/SubmittingPatches +3
-0+ +Linus Torvald's mail on the canonical patch format: + <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183>
--
Coywolf Qi Hunt
Quoted 1 line · Coywolf Qi Hunt
There's another one more updated at http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/lxr/source/
Excellent - thank-you for continuing to provide us a current Linux Cross-Reference (LXR).
An updated PATCHv2 coming soon.
Signature · 3 lines
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401Documentation/SubmittingPatches Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp) · line 353
Quoted 3 lines · Paul Jackson
Documentation/SubmittingPatches +2
-0+Jeff Garzik, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer" + <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/03/31/>
That was written by me, not Jeff...
thanks,
greg k-h
Quoted 1 line · Greg
That was written by me, not Jeff...
Duh - you are obviously right.
I guess you will have one more item to add to your list:
* Attribute work to the wrong author
(once again brought to you by the letters S, G, and I, just to keep up tradition ').
A new patch forthcoming ...
Signature · 3 lines
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401