]>
Commit | Line | Data |
---|---|---|
1 | Submitting Patches | |
2 | ================== | |
3 | ||
4 | == Guidelines | |
5 | ||
6 | Here are some guidelines for people who want to contribute their code | |
7 | to this software. | |
8 | ||
9 | [[base-branch]] | |
10 | === Decide what to base your work on. | |
11 | ||
12 | In general, always base your work on the oldest branch that your | |
13 | change is relevant to. | |
14 | ||
15 | * A bugfix should be based on `maint` in general. If the bug is not | |
16 | present in `maint`, base it on `master`. For a bug that's not yet | |
17 | in `master`, find the topic that introduces the regression, and | |
18 | base your work on the tip of the topic. | |
19 | ||
20 | * A new feature should be based on `master` in general. If the new | |
21 | feature depends on a topic that is in `pu`, but not in `master`, | |
22 | base your work on the tip of that topic. | |
23 | ||
24 | * Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in `master` should | |
25 | be based on the tip of that topic. If the topic has not been merged | |
26 | to `next`, it's alright to add a note to squash minor corrections | |
27 | into the series. | |
28 | ||
29 | * In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics | |
30 | not in `master`, start working on `next` or `pu` privately and send | |
31 | out patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to | |
32 | wait until some of the dependent topics graduate to `master`, and | |
33 | rebase your work. | |
34 | ||
35 | * Some parts of the system have dedicated maintainers with their own | |
36 | repositories (see the section "Subsystems" below). Changes to | |
37 | these parts should be based on their trees. | |
38 | ||
39 | To find the tip of a topic branch, run `git log --first-parent | |
40 | master..pu` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this | |
41 | commit is the tip of the topic branch. | |
42 | ||
43 | [[separate-commits]] | |
44 | === Make separate commits for logically separate changes. | |
45 | ||
46 | Unless your patch is really trivial, you should not be sending | |
47 | out a patch that was generated between your working tree and | |
48 | your commit head. Instead, always make a commit with complete | |
49 | commit message and generate a series of patches from your | |
50 | repository. It is a good discipline. | |
51 | ||
52 | Give an explanation for the change(s) that is detailed enough so | |
53 | that people can judge if it is good thing to do, without reading | |
54 | the actual patch text to determine how well the code does what | |
55 | the explanation promises to do. | |
56 | ||
57 | If your description starts to get too long, that's a sign that you | |
58 | probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces. | |
59 | That being said, patches which plainly describe the things that | |
60 | help reviewers check the patch, and future maintainers understand | |
61 | the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarize | |
62 | the point in the subject well, and describe the motivation for the | |
63 | change, the approach taken by the change, and if relevant how this | |
64 | differs substantially from the prior version, are all good things | |
65 | to have. | |
66 | ||
67 | Make sure that you have tests for the bug you are fixing. See | |
68 | `t/README` for guidance. | |
69 | ||
70 | [[tests]] | |
71 | When adding a new feature, make sure that you have new tests to show | |
72 | the feature triggers the new behavior when it should, and to show the | |
73 | feature does not trigger when it shouldn't. After any code change, make | |
74 | sure that the entire test suite passes. | |
75 | ||
76 | If you have an account at GitHub (and you can get one for free to work | |
77 | on open source projects), you can use their Travis CI integration to | |
78 | test your changes on Linux, Mac (and hopefully soon Windows). See | |
79 | GitHub-Travis CI hints section for details. | |
80 | ||
81 | Do not forget to update the documentation to describe the updated | |
82 | behavior and make sure that the resulting documentation set formats | |
83 | well (try the Documentation/doc-diff script). | |
84 | ||
85 | We currently have a liberal mixture of US and UK English norms for | |
86 | spelling and grammar, which is somewhat unfortunate. A huge patch that | |
87 | touches the files all over the place only to correct the inconsistency | |
88 | is not welcome, though. Potential clashes with other changes that can | |
89 | result from such a patch are not worth it. We prefer to gradually | |
90 | reconcile the inconsistencies in favor of US English, with small and | |
91 | easily digestible patches, as a side effect of doing some other real | |
92 | work in the vicinity (e.g. rewriting a paragraph for clarity, while | |
93 | turning en_UK spelling to en_US). Obvious typographical fixes are much | |
94 | more welcomed ("teh -> "the"), preferably submitted as independent | |
95 | patches separate from other documentation changes. | |
96 | ||
97 | [[whitespace-check]] | |
98 | Oh, another thing. We are picky about whitespaces. Make sure your | |
99 | changes do not trigger errors with the sample pre-commit hook shipped | |
100 | in `templates/hooks--pre-commit`. To help ensure this does not happen, | |
101 | run `git diff --check` on your changes before you commit. | |
102 | ||
103 | [[describe-changes]] | |
104 | === Describe your changes well. | |
105 | ||
106 | The first line of the commit message should be a short description (50 | |
107 | characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION in linkgit:git-commit[1]), | |
108 | and should skip the full stop. It is also conventional in most cases to | |
109 | prefix the first line with "area: " where the area is a filename or | |
110 | identifier for the general area of the code being modified, e.g. | |
111 | ||
112 | * doc: clarify distinction between sign-off and pgp-signing | |
113 | * githooks.txt: improve the intro section | |
114 | ||
115 | If in doubt which identifier to use, run `git log --no-merges` on the | |
116 | files you are modifying to see the current conventions. | |
117 | ||
118 | [[summary-section]] | |
119 | It's customary to start the remainder of the first line after "area: " | |
120 | with a lower-case letter. E.g. "doc: clarify...", not "doc: | |
121 | Clarify...", or "githooks.txt: improve...", not "githooks.txt: | |
122 | Improve...". | |
123 | ||
124 | [[meaningful-message]] | |
125 | The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which: | |
126 | ||
127 | . explains the problem the change tries to solve, i.e. what is wrong | |
128 | with the current code without the change. | |
129 | ||
130 | . justifies the way the change solves the problem, i.e. why the | |
131 | result with the change is better. | |
132 | ||
133 | . alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any. | |
134 | ||
135 | [[imperative-mood]] | |
136 | Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz" | |
137 | instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy | |
138 | to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change | |
139 | its behavior. Try to make sure your explanation can be understood | |
140 | without external resources. Instead of giving a URL to a mailing list | |
141 | archive, summarize the relevant points of the discussion. | |
142 | ||
143 | [[commit-reference]] | |
144 | If you want to reference a previous commit in the history of a stable | |
145 | branch, use the format "abbreviated sha1 (subject, date)", | |
146 | with the subject enclosed in a pair of double-quotes, like this: | |
147 | ||
148 | .... | |
149 | Commit f86a374 ("pack-bitmap.c: fix a memleak", 2015-03-30) | |
150 | noticed that ... | |
151 | .... | |
152 | ||
153 | The "Copy commit summary" command of gitk can be used to obtain this | |
154 | format, or this invocation of `git show`: | |
155 | ||
156 | .... | |
157 | git show -s --date=short --pretty='format:%h ("%s", %ad)' <commit> | |
158 | .... | |
159 | ||
160 | [[git-tools]] | |
161 | === Generate your patch using Git tools out of your commits. | |
162 | ||
163 | Git based diff tools generate unidiff which is the preferred format. | |
164 | ||
165 | You do not have to be afraid to use `-M` option to `git diff` or | |
166 | `git format-patch`, if your patch involves file renames. The | |
167 | receiving end can handle them just fine. | |
168 | ||
169 | [[review-patch]] | |
170 | Please make sure your patch does not add commented out debugging code, | |
171 | or include any extra files which do not relate to what your patch | |
172 | is trying to achieve. Make sure to review | |
173 | your patch after generating it, to ensure accuracy. Before | |
174 | sending out, please make sure it cleanly applies to the `master` | |
175 | branch head. If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch, | |
176 | that is fine, but please mark it as such. | |
177 | ||
178 | [[send-patches]] | |
179 | === Sending your patches. | |
180 | ||
181 | :security-ml: footnoteref:[security-ml,The Git Security mailing list: git-security@googlegroups.com] | |
182 | ||
183 | Before sending any patches, please note that patches that may be | |
184 | security relevant should be submitted privately to the Git Security | |
185 | mailing list{security-ml}, instead of the public mailing list. | |
186 | ||
187 | Learn to use format-patch and send-email if possible. These commands | |
188 | are optimized for the workflow of sending patches, avoiding many ways | |
189 | your existing e-mail client that is optimized for "multipart/*" mime | |
190 | type e-mails to corrupt and render your patches unusable. | |
191 | ||
192 | People on the Git mailing list need to be able to read and | |
193 | comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for | |
194 | a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard | |
195 | e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of | |
196 | your code. For this reason, each patch should be submitted | |
197 | "inline" in a separate message. | |
198 | ||
199 | Multiple related patches should be grouped into their own e-mail | |
200 | thread to help readers find all parts of the series. To that end, | |
201 | send them as replies to either an additional "cover letter" message | |
202 | (see below), the first patch, or the respective preceding patch. | |
203 | ||
204 | If your log message (including your name on the | |
205 | Signed-off-by line) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that | |
206 | you send off a message in the correct encoding. | |
207 | ||
208 | WARNING: Be wary of your MUAs word-wrap | |
209 | corrupting your patch. Do not cut-n-paste your patch; you can | |
210 | lose tabs that way if you are not careful. | |
211 | ||
212 | It is a common convention to prefix your subject line with | |
213 | [PATCH]. This lets people easily distinguish patches from other | |
214 | e-mail discussions. Use of markers in addition to PATCH within | |
215 | the brackets to describe the nature of the patch is also | |
216 | encouraged. E.g. [RFC PATCH] (where RFC stands for "request for | |
217 | comments") is often used to indicate a patch needs further | |
218 | discussion before being accepted, [PATCH v2], [PATCH v3] etc. | |
219 | are often seen when you are sending an update to what you have | |
220 | previously sent. | |
221 | ||
222 | The `git format-patch` command follows the best current practice to | |
223 | format the body of an e-mail message. At the beginning of the | |
224 | patch should come your commit message, ending with the | |
225 | Signed-off-by: lines, and a line that consists of three dashes, | |
226 | followed by the diffstat information and the patch itself. If | |
227 | you are forwarding a patch from somebody else, optionally, at | |
228 | the beginning of the e-mail message just before the commit | |
229 | message starts, you can put a "From: " line to name that person. | |
230 | To change the default "[PATCH]" in the subject to "[<text>]", use | |
231 | `git format-patch --subject-prefix=<text>`. As a shortcut, you | |
232 | can use `--rfc` instead of `--subject-prefix="RFC PATCH"`, or | |
233 | `-v <n>` instead of `--subject-prefix="PATCH v<n>"`. | |
234 | ||
235 | You often want to add additional explanation about the patch, | |
236 | other than the commit message itself. Place such "cover letter" | |
237 | material between the three-dash line and the diffstat. For | |
238 | patches requiring multiple iterations of review and discussion, | |
239 | an explanation of changes between each iteration can be kept in | |
240 | Git-notes and inserted automatically following the three-dash | |
241 | line via `git format-patch --notes`. | |
242 | ||
243 | [[attachment]] | |
244 | Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not. | |
245 | Do not let your e-mail client send quoted-printable. Do not let | |
246 | your e-mail client send format=flowed which would destroy | |
247 | whitespaces in your patches. Many | |
248 | popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME | |
249 | attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on | |
250 | your code. A MIME attachment also takes a bit more time to | |
251 | process. This does not decrease the likelihood of your | |
252 | MIME-attached change being accepted, but it makes it more likely | |
253 | that it will be postponed. | |
254 | ||
255 | Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask | |
256 | you to re-send them using MIME, that is OK. | |
257 | ||
258 | [[pgp-signature]] | |
259 | Do not PGP sign your patch. Most likely, your maintainer or other people on the | |
260 | list would not have your PGP key and would not bother obtaining it anyway. | |
261 | Your patch is not judged by who you are; a good patch from an unknown origin | |
262 | has a far better chance of being accepted than a patch from a known, respected | |
263 | origin that is done poorly or does incorrect things. | |
264 | ||
265 | If you really really really really want to do a PGP signed | |
266 | patch, format it as "multipart/signed", not a text/plain message | |
267 | that starts with `-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----`. That is | |
268 | not a text/plain, it's something else. | |
269 | ||
270 | :security-ml-ref: footnoteref:[security-ml] | |
271 | ||
272 | As mentioned at the beginning of the section, patches that may be | |
273 | security relevant should not be submitted to the public mailing list | |
274 | mentioned below, but should instead be sent privately to the Git | |
275 | Security mailing list{security-ml-ref}. | |
276 | ||
277 | Send your patch with "To:" set to the mailing list, with "cc:" listing | |
278 | people who are involved in the area you are touching (the `git | |
279 | contacts` command in `contrib/contacts/` can help to | |
280 | identify them), to solicit comments and reviews. | |
281 | ||
282 | :current-maintainer: footnote:[The current maintainer: gitster@pobox.com] | |
283 | :git-ml: footnote:[The mailing list: git@vger.kernel.org] | |
284 | ||
285 | After the list reached a consensus that it is a good idea to apply the | |
286 | patch, re-send it with "To:" set to the maintainer{current-maintainer} and "cc:" the | |
287 | list{git-ml} for inclusion. | |
288 | ||
289 | Do not forget to add trailers such as `Acked-by:`, `Reviewed-by:` and | |
290 | `Tested-by:` lines as necessary to credit people who helped your | |
291 | patch. | |
292 | ||
293 | [[sign-off]] | |
294 | === Certify your work by adding your "Signed-off-by: " line | |
295 | ||
296 | To improve tracking of who did what, we've borrowed the | |
297 | "sign-off" procedure from the Linux kernel project on patches | |
298 | that are being emailed around. Although core Git is a lot | |
299 | smaller project it is a good discipline to follow it. | |
300 | ||
301 | The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for | |
302 | the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have | |
303 | the right to pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are | |
304 | pretty simple: if you can certify the below D-C-O: | |
305 | ||
306 | [[dco]] | |
307 | .Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 | |
308 | ____ | |
309 | By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: | |
310 | ||
311 | a. The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I | |
312 | have the right to submit it under the open source license | |
313 | indicated in the file; or | |
314 | ||
315 | b. The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best | |
316 | of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source | |
317 | license and I have the right under that license to submit that | |
318 | work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part | |
319 | by me, under the same open source license (unless I am | |
320 | permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated | |
321 | in the file; or | |
322 | ||
323 | c. The contribution was provided directly to me by some other | |
324 | person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified | |
325 | it. | |
326 | ||
327 | d. I understand and agree that this project and the contribution | |
328 | are public and that a record of the contribution (including all | |
329 | personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is | |
330 | maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with | |
331 | this project or the open source license(s) involved. | |
332 | ____ | |
333 | ||
334 | then you just add a line saying | |
335 | ||
336 | .... | |
337 | Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> | |
338 | .... | |
339 | ||
340 | This line can be automatically added by Git if you run the git-commit | |
341 | command with the -s option. | |
342 | ||
343 | Notice that you can place your own Signed-off-by: line when | |
344 | forwarding somebody else's patch with the above rules for | |
345 | D-C-O. Indeed you are encouraged to do so. Do not forget to | |
346 | place an in-body "From: " line at the beginning to properly attribute | |
347 | the change to its true author (see (2) above). | |
348 | ||
349 | [[real-name]] | |
350 | Also notice that a real name is used in the Signed-off-by: line. Please | |
351 | don't hide your real name. | |
352 | ||
353 | [[commit-trailers]] | |
354 | If you like, you can put extra tags at the end: | |
355 | ||
356 | . `Reported-by:` is used to credit someone who found the bug that | |
357 | the patch attempts to fix. | |
358 | . `Acked-by:` says that the person who is more familiar with the area | |
359 | the patch attempts to modify liked the patch. | |
360 | . `Reviewed-by:`, unlike the other tags, can only be offered by the | |
361 | reviewer and means that she is completely satisfied that the patch | |
362 | is ready for application. It is usually offered only after a | |
363 | detailed review. | |
364 | . `Tested-by:` is used to indicate that the person applied the patch | |
365 | and found it to have the desired effect. | |
366 | ||
367 | You can also create your own tag or use one that's in common usage | |
368 | such as "Thanks-to:", "Based-on-patch-by:", or "Mentored-by:". | |
369 | ||
370 | == Subsystems with dedicated maintainers | |
371 | ||
372 | Some parts of the system have dedicated maintainers with their own | |
373 | repositories. | |
374 | ||
375 | - 'git-gui/' comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts: | |
376 | ||
377 | git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git | |
378 | ||
379 | - 'gitk-git/' comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project: | |
380 | ||
381 | git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk | |
382 | ||
383 | - 'po/' comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin: | |
384 | ||
385 | https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/ | |
386 | ||
387 | Patches to these parts should be based on their trees. | |
388 | ||
389 | [[patch-flow]] | |
390 | == An ideal patch flow | |
391 | ||
392 | Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer | |
393 | suggests to the contributors: | |
394 | ||
395 | . You come up with an itch. You code it up. | |
396 | ||
397 | . Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about | |
398 | the change. | |
399 | + | |
400 | The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you | |
401 | are butchering. These people happen to be the ones who are | |
402 | most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but | |
403 | they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help, | |
404 | don't demand). +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would | |
405 | help you find out who they are. | |
406 | ||
407 | . You get comments and suggestions for improvements. You may | |
408 | even get them in an "on top of your change" patch form. | |
409 | ||
410 | . Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who | |
411 | spend their time to improve your patch. Go back to step (2). | |
412 | ||
413 | . The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is | |
414 | good. Send it to the maintainer and cc the list. | |
415 | ||
416 | . A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to `next`, | |
417 | and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`. | |
418 | ||
419 | In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up | |
420 | from the list and queue it to `pu`, in order to make it easier for | |
421 | people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to | |
422 | their trees themselves. | |
423 | ||
424 | [[patch-status]] | |
425 | == Know the status of your patch after submission | |
426 | ||
427 | * You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in | |
428 | master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied | |
429 | patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top | |
430 | of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not | |
431 | tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of | |
432 | master). | |
433 | ||
434 | * Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages | |
435 | entitled "What's cooking in git.git" and "What's in git.git" giving | |
436 | the status of various proposed changes. | |
437 | ||
438 | [[travis]] | |
439 | == GitHub-Travis CI hints | |
440 | ||
441 | With an account at GitHub (you can get one for free to work on open | |
442 | source projects), you can use Travis CI to test your changes on Linux, | |
443 | Mac (and hopefully soon Windows). You can find a successful example | |
444 | test build here: https://travis-ci.org/git/git/builds/120473209 | |
445 | ||
446 | Follow these steps for the initial setup: | |
447 | ||
448 | . Fork https://github.com/git/git to your GitHub account. | |
449 | You can find detailed instructions how to fork here: | |
450 | https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo/ | |
451 | ||
452 | . Open the Travis CI website: https://travis-ci.org | |
453 | ||
454 | . Press the "Sign in with GitHub" button. | |
455 | ||
456 | . Grant Travis CI permissions to access your GitHub account. | |
457 | You can find more information about the required permissions here: | |
458 | https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/github-oauth-scopes | |
459 | ||
460 | . Open your Travis CI profile page: https://travis-ci.org/profile | |
461 | ||
462 | . Enable Travis CI builds for your Git fork. | |
463 | ||
464 | After the initial setup, Travis CI will run whenever you push new changes | |
465 | to your fork of Git on GitHub. You can monitor the test state of all your | |
466 | branches here: https://travis-ci.org/__<Your GitHub handle>__/git/branches | |
467 | ||
468 | If a branch did not pass all test cases then it is marked with a red | |
469 | cross. In that case you can click on the failing Travis CI job and | |
470 | scroll all the way down in the log. Find the line "<-- Click here to see | |
471 | detailed test output!" and click on the triangle next to the log line | |
472 | number to expand the detailed test output. Here is such a failing | |
473 | example: https://travis-ci.org/git/git/jobs/122676187 | |
474 | ||
475 | Fix the problem and push your fix to your Git fork. This will trigger | |
476 | a new Travis CI build to ensure all tests pass. | |
477 | ||
478 | [[mua]] | |
479 | == MUA specific hints | |
480 | ||
481 | Some of patches I receive or pick up from the list share common | |
482 | patterns of breakage. Please make sure your MUA is set up | |
483 | properly not to corrupt whitespaces. | |
484 | ||
485 | See the DISCUSSION section of linkgit:git-format-patch[1] for hints on | |
486 | checking your patch by mailing it to yourself and applying with | |
487 | linkgit:git-am[1]. | |
488 | ||
489 | While you are at it, check the resulting commit log message from | |
490 | a trial run of applying the patch. If what is in the resulting | |
491 | commit is not exactly what you would want to see, it is very | |
492 | likely that your maintainer would end up hand editing the log | |
493 | message when he applies your patch. Things like "Hi, this is my | |
494 | first patch.\n", if you really want to put in the patch e-mail, | |
495 | should come after the three-dash line that signals the end of the | |
496 | commit message. | |
497 | ||
498 | ||
499 | === Pine | |
500 | ||
501 | (Johannes Schindelin) | |
502 | ||
503 | .... | |
504 | I don't know how many people still use pine, but for those poor | |
505 | souls it may be good to mention that the quell-flowed-text is | |
506 | needed for recent versions. | |
507 | ||
508 | ... the "no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, too. AFAIK it | |
509 | was introduced in 4.60. | |
510 | .... | |
511 | ||
512 | (Linus Torvalds) | |
513 | ||
514 | .... | |
515 | And 4.58 needs at least this. | |
516 | ||
517 | diff-tree 8326dd8350be64ac7fc805f6563a1d61ad10d32c (from e886a61f76edf5410573e92e38ce22974f9c40f1) | |
518 | Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> | |
519 | Date: Mon Aug 15 17:23:51 2005 -0700 | |
520 | ||
521 | Fix pine whitespace-corruption bug | |
522 | ||
523 | There's no excuse for unconditionally removing whitespace from | |
524 | the pico buffers on close. | |
525 | ||
526 | diff --git a/pico/pico.c b/pico/pico.c | |
527 | --- a/pico/pico.c | |
528 | +++ b/pico/pico.c | |
529 | @@ -219,7 +219,9 @@ PICO *pm; | |
530 | switch(pico_all_done){ /* prepare for/handle final events */ | |
531 | case COMP_EXIT : /* already confirmed */ | |
532 | packheader(); | |
533 | +#if 0 | |
534 | stripwhitespace(); | |
535 | +#endif | |
536 | c |= COMP_EXIT; | |
537 | break; | |
538 | .... | |
539 | ||
540 | (Daniel Barkalow) | |
541 | ||
542 | .... | |
543 | > A patch to SubmittingPatches, MUA specific help section for | |
544 | > users of Pine 4.63 would be very much appreciated. | |
545 | ||
546 | Ah, it looks like a recent version changed the default behavior to do the | |
547 | right thing, and inverted the sense of the configuration option. (Either | |
548 | that or Gentoo did it.) So you need to set the | |
549 | "no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, unless the option you have is | |
550 | "strip-whitespace-before-send", in which case you should avoid checking | |
551 | it. | |
552 | .... | |
553 | ||
554 | === Thunderbird, KMail, GMail | |
555 | ||
556 | See the MUA-SPECIFIC HINTS section of linkgit:git-format-patch[1]. | |
557 | ||
558 | === Gnus | |
559 | ||
560 | "|" in the `*Summary*` buffer can be used to pipe the current | |
561 | message to an external program, and this is a handy way to drive | |
562 | `git am`. However, if the message is MIME encoded, what is | |
563 | piped into the program is the representation you see in your | |
564 | `*Article*` buffer after unwrapping MIME. This is often not what | |
565 | you would want for two reasons. It tends to screw up non ASCII | |
566 | characters (most notably in people's names), and also | |
567 | whitespaces (fatal in patches). Running "C-u g" to display the | |
568 | message in raw form before using "|" to run the pipe can work | |
569 | this problem around. |