[PATCHv3] Document from line in patch format

[PATCHv3] Document from line in patch format

[Paul Jackson]

Document more details of patch format such as the "from" line
and the "---" marker line, and provide more references for
patch guidelines.

Signed-off-by: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>

---

How's this, Linus?  I made "---" mandatory, and buffed
the text some more.

--- 2.6.14-rc2-mm2.orig/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ 2.6.14-rc2-mm2/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -301,8 +301,71 @@ 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:
+
+  - A "from" line specifying the patch author.
+
+  - An empty line.
+
+  - The body of the explanation, which will be copied to the
+    permanent changelog to describe this patch.
+
+  - The "Signed-off-by:" lines, described above, which will
+    also go in the changelog.
+
+  - 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 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.
+
+The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
+and has the form:
+
+        From: Original Author <author@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.
+
+The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch
+handling tools where the changelog message ends.  As a compatibility
+hack, some of the patch handling tools take lines beginning with
+"diff -" or "Index: " as alternative forms of the "---" marker.
+The recommended form is "---".
+
+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.
+
+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 +373,14 @@ Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp)
 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format."
   <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
 
+Greg KH, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer"
+  <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/03/31/>
+
+Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle
+  <http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/lxr/source/>
+
+Linus Torvald's mail on the canonical patch format:
+  <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183>
 
 
 -----------------------------------

-- 
                          I won't rest till it's the best ...
                          Programmer, Linux Scalability
                          Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373

Re: [PATCHv3] Document from line in patch format

[Coywolf Qi Hunt]

On 10/3/05, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote:
> Document more details of patch format such as the "from" line
> and the "---" marker line, and provide more references for
> patch guidelines.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
>
> ---
>
> How's this, Linus?  I made "---" mandatory, and buffed
> the text some more.
>
> --- 2.6.14-rc2-mm2.orig/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ 2.6.14-rc2-mm2/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -301,8 +301,71 @@ 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:
> +
> +  - A "from" line specifying the patch author.
> +
> +  - An empty line.
> +
> +  - The body of the explanation, which will be copied to the
> +    permanent changelog to describe this patch.
> +
> +  - The "Signed-off-by:" lines, described above, which will
> +    also go in the changelog.
> +
> +  - 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 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.
> +
> +The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
> +and has the form:
> +
> +        From: Original Author <author@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.
> +
> +The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch
> +handling tools where the changelog message ends.  As a compatibility
> +hack, some of the patch handling tools take lines beginning with
> +"diff -" or "Index: " as alternative forms of the "---" marker.
> +The recommended form is "---".
> +
> +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.
> +
> +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 +373,14 @@ Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp)
>  Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format."
>    <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
>
> +Greg KH, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer"
> +  <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/03/31/>
> +
> +Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle
> +  <http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/lxr/source/>

I guess you mean
<http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/lxr/source/Documentation/CodingStyle> here.

> +
> +Linus Torvald's mail on the canonical patch format:
> +  <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183>

--
Coywolf Qi Hunt
http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/

Re: [PATCHv3] Document from line in patch format

[Paul Jackson]

coywolf wrote:
> I guess you mean
> <http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/lxr/source/Documentation/CodingStyle> here.

Yup.

I got distracted looking around your reincarnated lxr site,
and loss track of what I came there for.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401