diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'source_repositories.mdwn')
| -rw-r--r-- | source_repositories.mdwn | 156 |
1 files changed, 156 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/source_repositories.mdwn b/source_repositories.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 00000000..fc52714e --- /dev/null +++ b/source_repositories.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@ +[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Free Software Foundation, +Inc."]] + +[[!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: <http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/>. + +# 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 + `BASE_BRANCH`. + +`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. + +Examples: + + * 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://git.savannah.gnu.org/srv/git/hurd/unionfs.git + $ 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 +arise. + +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](http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/) 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 +Git. + +Example: + + commit 3054666a46e0142cacef895c13edb4391435c722 + Author: Some One <someone@example.com> + AuthorDate: Thu Jun 11 15:59:55 2005 +0000 + Commit: Some One <someone@example.com> + 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` +messages](http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Change-Logs.html). + +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. |