2007-03-05 16:37:54 +01:00
|
|
|
Checklist (and a short version for the impatient):
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-30 18:04:25 +02:00
|
|
|
Commits:
|
|
|
|
|
2007-03-05 16:37:54 +01:00
|
|
|
- make commits of logical units
|
|
|
|
- check for unnecessary whitespace with "git diff --check"
|
|
|
|
before committing
|
|
|
|
- do not check in commented out code or unneeded files
|
|
|
|
- the first line of the commit message should be a short
|
2010-07-28 16:11:25 +02:00
|
|
|
description (50 characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION
|
|
|
|
in git-commit(1)), and should skip the full stop
|
2009-04-27 16:38:47 +02:00
|
|
|
- the body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:
|
2011-03-09 01:58:19 +01:00
|
|
|
. explains the problem the change tries to solve, iow, what
|
|
|
|
is wrong with the current code without the change.
|
|
|
|
. justifies the way the change solves the problem, iow, why
|
|
|
|
the result with the change is better.
|
|
|
|
. alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any.
|
|
|
|
- describe changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
|
|
|
|
instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed
|
|
|
|
xyzzy to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase
|
|
|
|
to change its behaviour.
|
|
|
|
- try to make sure your explanation can be understood without
|
|
|
|
external resources. Instead of giving a URL to a mailing list
|
|
|
|
archive, summarize the relevant points of the discussion.
|
2010-07-28 16:12:59 +02:00
|
|
|
- add a "Signed-off-by: Your Name <you@example.com>" line to the
|
|
|
|
commit message (or just use the option "-s" when committing)
|
|
|
|
to confirm that you agree to the Developer's Certificate of Origin
|
2007-06-03 02:46:47 +02:00
|
|
|
- make sure that you have tests for the bug you are fixing
|
|
|
|
- make sure that the test suite passes after your commit
|
2007-04-30 18:04:25 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patch:
|
|
|
|
|
2007-03-05 16:37:54 +01:00
|
|
|
- use "git format-patch -M" to create the patch
|
2007-04-30 18:04:25 +02:00
|
|
|
- do not PGP sign your patch
|
2007-03-05 16:37:54 +01:00
|
|
|
- do not attach your patch, but read in the mail
|
|
|
|
body, unless you cannot teach your mailer to
|
|
|
|
leave the formatting of the patch alone.
|
|
|
|
- be careful doing cut & paste into your mailer, not to
|
|
|
|
corrupt whitespaces.
|
|
|
|
- provide additional information (which is unsuitable for
|
|
|
|
the commit message) between the "---" and the diffstat
|
2007-04-16 07:35:25 +02:00
|
|
|
- if you change, add, or remove a command line option or
|
|
|
|
make some other user interface change, the associated
|
|
|
|
documentation should be updated as well.
|
2007-06-03 02:46:47 +02:00
|
|
|
- if your name is not writable in ASCII, make sure that
|
|
|
|
you send off a message in the correct encoding.
|
2007-11-08 17:40:25 +01:00
|
|
|
- send the patch to the list (git@vger.kernel.org) and the
|
2008-02-04 02:00:16 +01:00
|
|
|
maintainer (gitster@pobox.com) if (and only if) the patch
|
|
|
|
is ready for inclusion. If you use git-send-email(1),
|
|
|
|
please test it first by sending email to yourself.
|
2010-05-25 10:30:13 +02:00
|
|
|
- see below for instructions specific to your mailer
|
2007-03-05 16:37:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long version:
|
|
|
|
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
I started reading over the SubmittingPatches document for Linux
|
|
|
|
kernel, primarily because I wanted to have a document similar to
|
|
|
|
it for the core GIT to make sure people understand what they are
|
|
|
|
doing when they write "Signed-off-by" line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the patch submission requirements are a lot more relaxed
|
2006-02-18 01:15:26 +01:00
|
|
|
here on the technical/contents front, because the core GIT is
|
|
|
|
thousand times smaller ;-). So here is only the relevant bits.
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2010-04-18 21:54:20 +02:00
|
|
|
(0) Decide what to base your work on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In general, always base your work on the oldest branch that your
|
|
|
|
change is relevant to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A bugfix should be based on 'maint' in general. If the bug is not
|
|
|
|
present in 'maint', base it on 'master'. For a bug that's not yet
|
|
|
|
in 'master', find the topic that introduces the regression, and
|
|
|
|
base your work on the tip of the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A new feature should be based on 'master' in general. If the new
|
|
|
|
feature depends on a topic that is in 'pu', but not in 'master',
|
|
|
|
base your work on the tip of that topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in 'master' should
|
|
|
|
be based on the tip of that topic. If the topic has not been merged
|
|
|
|
to 'next', it's alright to add a note to squash minor corrections
|
|
|
|
into the series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics
|
|
|
|
not in 'master', start working on 'next' or 'pu' privately and send
|
|
|
|
out patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to
|
|
|
|
wait until some of the dependent topics graduate to 'master', and
|
|
|
|
rebase your work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To find the tip of a topic branch, run "git log --first-parent
|
|
|
|
master..pu" and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this
|
|
|
|
commit is the tip of the topic branch.
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Make separate commits for logically separate changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless your patch is really trivial, you should not be sending
|
|
|
|
out a patch that was generated between your working tree and
|
|
|
|
your commit head. Instead, always make a commit with complete
|
|
|
|
commit message and generate a series of patches from your
|
|
|
|
repository. It is a good discipline.
|
|
|
|
|
2011-03-09 01:58:19 +01:00
|
|
|
Give an explanation for the change(s) that is detailed enough so
|
|
|
|
that people can judge if it is good thing to do, without reading
|
|
|
|
the actual patch text to determine how well the code does what
|
|
|
|
the explanation promises to do.
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2006-02-18 01:15:26 +01:00
|
|
|
If your description starts to get too long, that's a sign that you
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces.
|
2009-04-27 16:38:47 +02:00
|
|
|
That being said, patches which plainly describe the things that
|
|
|
|
help reviewers check the patch, and future maintainers understand
|
|
|
|
the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarise
|
|
|
|
the point in the subject well, and describe the motivation for the
|
|
|
|
change, the approach taken by the change, and if relevant how this
|
2011-03-09 01:58:19 +01:00
|
|
|
differs substantially from the prior version, are all good things
|
|
|
|
to have.
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2006-02-18 01:15:26 +01:00
|
|
|
Oh, another thing. I am picky about whitespaces. Make sure your
|
|
|
|
changes do not trigger errors with the sample pre-commit hook shipped
|
2007-01-27 14:21:53 +01:00
|
|
|
in templates/hooks--pre-commit. To help ensure this does not happen,
|
|
|
|
run git diff --check on your changes before you commit.
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-05-21 14:48:49 +02:00
|
|
|
(1a) Try to be nice to older C compilers
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-01 14:53:51 +02:00
|
|
|
We try to support a wide range of C compilers to compile
|
2007-05-21 14:48:49 +02:00
|
|
|
git with. That means that you should not use C99 initializers, even
|
|
|
|
if a lot of compilers grok it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, variables have to be declared at the beginning of the block
|
|
|
|
(you can check this with gcc, using the -Wdeclaration-after-statement
|
|
|
|
option).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another thing: NULL pointers shall be written as NULL, not as 0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-02-18 01:15:26 +01:00
|
|
|
(2) Generate your patch using git tools out of your commits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git based diff tools (git, Cogito, and StGIT included) generate
|
|
|
|
unidiff which is the preferred format.
|
|
|
|
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
You do not have to be afraid to use -M option to "git diff" or
|
|
|
|
"git format-patch", if your patch involves file renames. The
|
|
|
|
receiving end can handle them just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please make sure your patch does not include any extra files
|
|
|
|
which do not belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review
|
|
|
|
your patch after generating it, to ensure accuracy. Before
|
|
|
|
sending out, please make sure it cleanly applies to the "master"
|
2006-02-18 01:15:26 +01:00
|
|
|
branch head. If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch,
|
|
|
|
that is fine, but please mark it as such.
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) Sending your patches.
|
|
|
|
|
2006-02-18 01:15:26 +01:00
|
|
|
People on the git mailing list need to be able to read and
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for
|
|
|
|
a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard
|
|
|
|
e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of
|
2006-07-09 09:44:30 +02:00
|
|
|
your code. For this reason, all patches should be submitted
|
2006-02-18 01:15:26 +01:00
|
|
|
"inline". WARNING: Be wary of your MUAs word-wrap
|
|
|
|
corrupting your patch. Do not cut-n-paste your patch; you can
|
|
|
|
lose tabs that way if you are not careful.
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2006-02-18 01:15:26 +01:00
|
|
|
It is a common convention to prefix your subject line with
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
[PATCH]. This lets people easily distinguish patches from other
|
2008-02-04 01:55:21 +01:00
|
|
|
e-mail discussions. Use of additional markers after PATCH and
|
|
|
|
the closing bracket to mark the nature of the patch is also
|
|
|
|
encouraged. E.g. [PATCH/RFC] is often used when the patch is
|
|
|
|
not ready to be applied but it is for discussion, [PATCH v2],
|
|
|
|
[PATCH v3] etc. are often seen when you are sending an update to
|
|
|
|
what you have previously sent.
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"git format-patch" command follows the best current practice to
|
|
|
|
format the body of an e-mail message. At the beginning of the
|
|
|
|
patch should come your commit message, ending with the
|
|
|
|
Signed-off-by: lines, and a line that consists of three dashes,
|
|
|
|
followed by the diffstat information and the patch itself. If
|
|
|
|
you are forwarding a patch from somebody else, optionally, at
|
|
|
|
the beginning of the e-mail message just before the commit
|
|
|
|
message starts, you can put a "From: " line to name that person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You often want to add additional explanation about the patch,
|
|
|
|
other than the commit message itself. Place such "cover letter"
|
|
|
|
material between the three dash lines and the diffstat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
|
2007-01-17 10:07:27 +01:00
|
|
|
Do not let your e-mail client send quoted-printable. Do not let
|
|
|
|
your e-mail client send format=flowed which would destroy
|
|
|
|
whitespaces in your patches. Many
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME
|
|
|
|
attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on
|
|
|
|
your code. A MIME attachment also takes a bit more time to
|
|
|
|
process. This does not decrease the likelihood of your
|
|
|
|
MIME-attached change being accepted, but it makes it more likely
|
|
|
|
that it will be postponed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
|
2005-08-29 02:54:18 +02:00
|
|
|
you to re-send them using MIME, that is OK.
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-08-29 02:54:18 +02:00
|
|
|
Do not PGP sign your patch, at least for now. Most likely, your
|
|
|
|
maintainer or other people on the list would not have your PGP
|
|
|
|
key and would not bother obtaining it anyway. Your patch is not
|
|
|
|
judged by who you are; a good patch from an unknown origin has a
|
|
|
|
far better chance of being accepted than a patch from a known,
|
|
|
|
respected origin that is done poorly or does incorrect things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you really really really really want to do a PGP signed
|
|
|
|
patch, format it as "multipart/signed", not a text/plain message
|
|
|
|
that starts with '-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----'. That is
|
|
|
|
not a text/plain, it's something else.
|
|
|
|
|
2010-04-18 21:54:20 +02:00
|
|
|
Unless your patch is a very trivial and an obviously correct one,
|
|
|
|
first send it with "To:" set to the mailing list, with "cc:" listing
|
|
|
|
people who are involved in the area you are touching (the output from
|
|
|
|
"git blame $path" and "git shortlog --no-merges $path" would help to
|
|
|
|
identify them), to solicit comments and reviews. After the list
|
|
|
|
reached a consensus that it is a good idea to apply the patch, re-send
|
|
|
|
it with "To:" set to the maintainer and optionally "cc:" the list for
|
|
|
|
inclusion. Do not forget to add trailers such as "Acked-by:",
|
|
|
|
"Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by:" after your "Signed-off-by:" line as
|
|
|
|
necessary.
|
2006-10-24 10:29:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2006-10-25 23:38:24 +02:00
|
|
|
(4) Sign your work
|
2005-08-13 08:48:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To improve tracking of who did what, we've borrowed the
|
|
|
|
"sign-off" procedure from the Linux kernel project on patches
|
|
|
|
that are being emailed around. Although core GIT is a lot
|
|
|
|
smaller project it is a good discipline to follow it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for
|
|
|
|
the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have
|
|
|
|
the right to pass it on as a open-source patch. The rules are
|
|
|
|
pretty simple: if you can certify the below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
|
|
|
|
have the right to submit it under the open source license
|
|
|
|
indicated in the file; or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
|
|
|
|
of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
|
|
|
|
license and I have the right under that license to submit that
|
|
|
|
work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
|
|
|
|
by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
|
|
|
|
permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
|
|
|
|
in the file; or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
|
|
|
|
person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
|
|
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
|
|
|
|
are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
|
|
|
|
personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
|
|
|
|
maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
|
|
|
|
this project or the open source license(s) involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then you just add a line saying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
|
|
|
|
|
2006-11-21 19:55:20 +01:00
|
|
|
This line can be automatically added by git if you run the git-commit
|
|
|
|
command with the -s option.
|
|
|
|
|
2008-02-04 02:02:28 +01:00
|
|
|
Notice that you can place your own Signed-off-by: line when
|
|
|
|
forwarding somebody else's patch with the above rules for
|
|
|
|
D-C-O. Indeed you are encouraged to do so. Do not forget to
|
|
|
|
place an in-body "From: " line at the beginning to properly attribute
|
|
|
|
the change to its true author (see (2) above).
|
|
|
|
|
2008-12-20 01:52:17 +01:00
|
|
|
Also notice that a real name is used in the Signed-off-by: line. Please
|
|
|
|
don't hide your real name.
|
|
|
|
|
2010-10-02 06:37:43 +02:00
|
|
|
If you like, you can put extra tags at the end:
|
|
|
|
|
2011-04-13 17:39:40 +02:00
|
|
|
1. "Reported-by:" is used to credit someone who found the bug that
|
2010-10-02 06:37:43 +02:00
|
|
|
the patch attempts to fix.
|
|
|
|
2. "Acked-by:" says that the person who is more familiar with the area
|
|
|
|
the patch attempts to modify liked the patch.
|
|
|
|
3. "Reviewed-by:", unlike the other tags, can only be offered by the
|
|
|
|
reviewer and means that she is completely satisfied that the patch
|
|
|
|
is ready for application. It is usually offered only after a
|
|
|
|
detailed review.
|
|
|
|
4. "Tested-by:" is used to indicate that the person applied the patch
|
|
|
|
and found it to have the desired effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can also create your own tag or use one that's in common usage
|
|
|
|
such as "Thanks-to:", "Based-on-patch-by:", or "Mentored-by:".
|
2005-08-27 08:53:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2008-02-10 23:09:52 +01:00
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
An ideal patch flow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
|
|
|
|
suggests to the contributors:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0) You come up with an itch. You code it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about
|
|
|
|
the change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you
|
|
|
|
are butchering. These people happen to be the ones who are
|
|
|
|
most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
|
|
|
|
they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help,
|
|
|
|
don't demand). "git log -p -- $area_you_are_modifying" would
|
|
|
|
help you find out who they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) You get comments and suggestions for improvements. You may
|
|
|
|
even get them in a "on top of your change" patch form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
|
|
|
|
spend their time to improve your patch. Go back to step (2).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4) The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
|
|
|
|
good. Send it to the list and cc the maintainer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5) A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to 'next',
|
|
|
|
and cooked further and eventually graduates to 'master'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
|
|
|
|
from the list and queue it to 'pu', in order to make it easier for
|
|
|
|
people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
|
|
|
|
their trees themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
2009-12-30 15:51:22 +01:00
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Know the status of your patch after submission
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in
|
|
|
|
master. 'git pull --rebase' will automatically skip already-applied
|
|
|
|
patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
|
|
|
|
of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
|
|
|
|
tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of
|
|
|
|
master).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Read the git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
|
|
|
|
entitled "What's cooking in git.git" and "What's in git.git" giving
|
|
|
|
the status of various proposed changes.
|
|
|
|
|
2005-08-27 08:53:07 +02:00
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
MUA specific hints
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of patches I receive or pick up from the list share common
|
|
|
|
patterns of breakage. Please make sure your MUA is set up
|
2011-04-15 04:24:01 +02:00
|
|
|
properly not to corrupt whitespaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See the DISCUSSION section of git-format-patch(1) for hints on
|
|
|
|
checking your patch by mailing it to yourself and applying with
|
|
|
|
git-am(1).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While you are at it, check the resulting commit log message from
|
|
|
|
a trial run of applying the patch. If what is in the resulting
|
|
|
|
commit is not exactly what you would want to see, it is very
|
|
|
|
likely that your maintainer would end up hand editing the log
|
|
|
|
message when he applies your patch. Things like "Hi, this is my
|
|
|
|
first patch.\n", if you really want to put in the patch e-mail,
|
|
|
|
should come after the three-dash line that signals the end of the
|
|
|
|
commit message.
|
2005-08-29 02:54:18 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-08-27 08:53:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pine
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Johannes Schindelin)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how many people still use pine, but for those poor
|
|
|
|
souls it may be good to mention that the quell-flowed-text is
|
|
|
|
needed for recent versions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... the "no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, too. AFAIK it
|
|
|
|
was introduced in 4.60.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Linus Torvalds)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And 4.58 needs at least this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
diff-tree 8326dd8350be64ac7fc805f6563a1d61ad10d32c (from e886a61f76edf5410573e92e38ce22974f9c40f1)
|
|
|
|
Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org>
|
|
|
|
Date: Mon Aug 15 17:23:51 2005 -0700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix pine whitespace-corruption bug
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no excuse for unconditionally removing whitespace from
|
|
|
|
the pico buffers on close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
diff --git a/pico/pico.c b/pico/pico.c
|
|
|
|
--- a/pico/pico.c
|
|
|
|
+++ b/pico/pico.c
|
|
|
|
@@ -219,7 +219,9 @@ PICO *pm;
|
2007-06-07 09:04:01 +02:00
|
|
|
switch(pico_all_done){ /* prepare for/handle final events */
|
|
|
|
case COMP_EXIT : /* already confirmed */
|
|
|
|
packheader();
|
2005-08-27 08:53:07 +02:00
|
|
|
+#if 0
|
2007-06-07 09:04:01 +02:00
|
|
|
stripwhitespace();
|
2005-08-27 08:53:07 +02:00
|
|
|
+#endif
|
2007-06-07 09:04:01 +02:00
|
|
|
c |= COMP_EXIT;
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
2005-08-27 08:53:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-08-31 20:48:41 +02:00
|
|
|
(Daniel Barkalow)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> A patch to SubmittingPatches, MUA specific help section for
|
|
|
|
> users of Pine 4.63 would be very much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, it looks like a recent version changed the default behavior to do the
|
|
|
|
right thing, and inverted the sense of the configuration option. (Either
|
|
|
|
that or Gentoo did it.) So you need to set the
|
|
|
|
"no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, unless the option you have is
|
|
|
|
"strip-whitespace-before-send", in which case you should avoid checking
|
|
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
|
2005-08-27 08:53:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2011-04-15 04:33:57 +02:00
|
|
|
Thunderbird, KMail, GMail
|
|
|
|
-------------------------
|
2005-08-27 08:53:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2011-04-15 04:28:06 +02:00
|
|
|
See the MUA-SPECIFIC HINTS section of git-format-patch(1).
|
2007-01-17 10:07:27 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gnus
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'|' in the *Summary* buffer can be used to pipe the current
|
|
|
|
message to an external program, and this is a handy way to drive
|
|
|
|
"git am". However, if the message is MIME encoded, what is
|
|
|
|
piped into the program is the representation you see in your
|
|
|
|
*Article* buffer after unwrapping MIME. This is often not what
|
|
|
|
you would want for two reasons. It tends to screw up non ASCII
|
|
|
|
characters (most notably in people's names), and also
|
|
|
|
whitespaces (fatal in patches). Running 'C-u g' to display the
|
|
|
|
message in raw form before using '|' to run the pipe can work
|
|
|
|
this problem around.
|