path: root/source_repositories.mdwn
diff options
authorThomas Schwinge <>2010-02-27 21:38:14 +0100
committerThomas Schwinge <>2010-02-27 21:38:14 +0100
commita470fa9bd3224186c4a79db5bc386883f661abd0 (patch)
tree65b6aa9a80e4bae5ce20a35312b7646dad077f30 /source_repositories.mdwn
parenta3e20e0c3f2012ab580cf4118259da68668a5812 (diff)
rules/source_repositories -> source_repositories
Diffstat (limited to 'source_repositories.mdwn')
1 files changed, 156 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/source_repositories.mdwn b/source_repositories.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fc52714
--- /dev/null
+++ b/source_repositories.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Free Software Foundation,
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled
+[[GNU Free Documentation License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+Git repositories on Savannah: <>.
+# Branches
+Members of the [[Hurd Savannah group|rules/savannah group]] are allowed to create
+branches without formal permission:
+ * named `SAVANNAH_LOGIN/BASE_BRANCH[-TOPIC]` for private general-purpose or
+ topic branches, respectively, or
+ * named `BASE_BRANCH-TOPIC` for public topic branches basing on
+`TOPIC` shall be a suitable tag describing the branch's main concern. These
+tags can be applied recursively (`TOPIC-SUBTOPIC-SUBSUBTOPIC`).
+*private* vs. *public* does, of course, in this scenario not mean visibility,
+but instead authority: *private* branches are those that the user
+`SAVANNAH_LOGIN` has authority over, whereas *public* branches are open for
+every committer to install changes on. The private branches are those that you
+would typically host on your own machine and publish through your own web
+server, but we offer that you can instead do this from the centralized Savannah
+repository, as a number of people don't have an always-accessible web server
+running on their own machines.
+ * GNU Mach
+ * `master` -- the mainline branch
+ * `master-oskit` -- port to OSKit; branched off of `master` at some point
+ * `master-gdb_stubs` -- add support for GDB stubs; branched off of
+ `master` at some point
+ * libpthread
+ * `master` -- the mainline branch
+ * `master-viengoos` -- port to Viengoos; branched off of `master` at some
+ point
+ * `master-viengoos-on-bare-metal` -- port to Viengoos running on bare
+ metal; branched off of `master-viengoos` at some point
+ * unionfs
+ * `master` -- the mainline branch
+ * `master-unionmount` -- develop `unionmount` based on `unionfs`' master
+ branch
+To give a concrete example, the latter one was created like this:
+ $ git clone --no-checkout ssh://
+ $ cd unionfs/
+ $ git checkout -b master-unionmount origin/master
+ $ ...
+ $ git push master-unionmount
+## Merging
+Merging between Git branches is trivial, at least as long as no conflicts
+Due to this, you are encouraged to freely make use of separate branches for
+different working topics, as this really faciliates concentrating on one
+specific working topic.
+You are encouraged to regularely merge from the respective mainline branches
+(`BASE_BRANCH`; should be `master` in most cases) into your working branches,
+and ensure that your modifications are still fine in the context of new
+mainline changes.
+Merging from working branches into the mainline branches will usually be done
+by one of the project administrators, unless negotiated otherwise. For this to
+happen, the copyright of your changes has to be assigned to the Free Software
+Foundation; read about the
+[[copyright assignment_process|rules/savannah group#copyright_assignment]].
+It is explicitly encouraged to *merge* changes from working branches into the
+mainline branches (as opposed to *rebase* them on top), as the former mode
+easily allows to determine the context under which a patch has been developed.
+# Tags
+Equivalent rules apply.
+# Behavior
+Try to not introduce spurious, unneeded changes, e.g., whitespace changes.
+Adhere to the coding conventions that are already used. These are usually the
+[GNU Coding Standards]( for stuff
+written by ourselves, including new files, of course.
+GNU Mach code is largely based on external code. Don't GNU-ify it, as this
+would make merging external patches unnecessarily difficult.
+## Commit messages
+We no longer maintain parallel `ChangeLog` and commit messages. When needed,
+the `ChangeLog` files can be created automatically from the commit messages.
+Commit messages have this mandatory format:
+ One-line summary.
+ Blank line.
+ ChangeLog-like list of changes, but without leading tabs.
+The header line of each former `ChangeLog` snippet (DATE NAME EMAIL) is no
+longer to be included in the commit message, and instead the author and
+committer of a change, together with the dates, will be maintained natively by
+ commit 3054666a46e0142cacef895c13edb4391435c722
+ Author: Some One <>
+ AuthorDate: Thu Jun 11 15:59:55 2005 +0000
+ Commit: Some One <>
+ CommitDate: Thu Jun 11 15:59:55 2005 +0000
+ Frobnicate the foo.
+ * frob.c (foo): Frob it.
+ * oldfoo.c [OLD] (oldfoo): Likewise.
+ [OLD_OLD_FOO] (oofoo): Permute every second word with itself, and
+ beginning with the tenth line, every third one also. Pure
+ nonsense.
+Read about how to write [GNU-style `ChangeLog`
+Don't waste time writing exhaustive `ChangeLog`-like commit messages for, e.g.,
+debugging stuff that will be removed again before merging your development
+branch into the mainline. Sometimes the one-line summary might already
+suffice. But please do write something.
+## Behavior on *private* branches
+Even though you are said to be the owner of branches tagged with your
+`SAVANNAH_LOGIN`, it is generally nevertheless good to not do history-rewriting
+stuff and the like (`git rebase` and friends), as others may in turn be basing
+their work on your private branches.
+We could establish a branch-tagging policy for branches that others should
+expect their history possibly to be rewritten. This may be useful for branches
+that are only meant for aggregating the changes of (several) development
+branches, like an imaginary `master-proposed_for_general_testing` branch.