1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>Submitting Patches</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="mesa.css">
</head>
<body>
<div class="header">
The Mesa 3D Graphics Library
</div>
<iframe src="contents.html"></iframe>
<div class="content">
<h1>Submitting Patches</h1>
<ul>
<li><a href="#guidelines">Basic guidelines</a>
<li><a href="#formatting">Patch formatting</a>
<li><a href="#testing">Testing Patches</a>
<li><a href="#submit">Submitting Patches</a>
<li><a href="#reviewing">Reviewing Patches</a>
<li><a href="#nominations">Nominating a commit for a stable branch</a>
<li><a href="#criteria">Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch</a>
<li><a href="#backports">Sending backports for the stable branch</a>
<li><a href="#gittips">Git tips</a>
</ul>
<h2 id="guidelines">Basic guidelines</h2>
<ul>
<li>Patches should not mix code changes with code formatting changes (except,
perhaps, in very trivial cases.)
<li>Code patches should follow Mesa
<a href="codingstyle.html" target="_parent">coding conventions</a>.
<li>Whenever possible, patches should only affect individual Mesa/Gallium
components.
<li>Patches should never introduce build breaks and should be bisectable (see
<code>git bisect</code>.)
<li>Patches should be properly <a href="#formatting">formatted</a>.
<li>Patches should be sufficiently <a href="#testing">tested</a> before submitting.
<li>Patches should be <a href="#submit">submitted</a> via a merge request for
<a href="#reviewing">review</a>.
</ul>
<h2 id="formatting">Patch formatting</h2>
<ul>
<li>Lines should be limited to 75 characters or less so that git logs
displayed in 80-column terminals avoid line wrapping. Note that git
log uses 4 spaces of indentation (4 + 75 < 80).
<li>The first line should be a short, concise summary of the change prefixed
with a module name. Examples:
<pre>
mesa: Add support for querying GL_VERTEX_ATTRIB_ARRAY_LONG
gallium: add PIPE_CAP_DEVICE_RESET_STATUS_QUERY
i965: Fix missing type in local variable declaration.
</pre>
<li>Subsequent patch comments should describe the change in more detail,
if needed. For example:
<pre>
i965: Remove end-of-thread SEND alignment code.
This was present in Eric's initial implementation of the compaction code
for Sandybridge (commit 077d01b6). There is no documentation saying this
is necessary, and removing it causes no regressions in piglit on any
platform.
</pre>
<li>A "Signed-off-by:" line is not required, but not discouraged either.
<li>If a patch addresses an issue in gitlab, use the Closes: tag
For example:
<pre>
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/issues/1
</pre>
<p>Prefer the full url to just <code>Closes: #1</code>, since the url makes it
easier to get to the bug page from <code>git log</code></p>
<b>Do not use the Fixes: tag for this!</b> Mesa already uses Fixes for something else.
<li>If a patch addresses a issue introduced with earlier commit, that should be
noted in the patch comment. For example:
<pre>
Fixes: d7b3707c612 "util/disk_cache: use stat() to check if entry is a directory"
</pre>
<li>You can produce those fixes lines by running
<pre>git config --global alias.fixes "show -s --pretty='format:Fixes: %h (\"%s\")'"</pre>
once and then using <pre>git fixes <sha1></pre>
<li>If there have been several revisions to a patch during the review
process, they should be noted such as in this example:
<pre>
st/mesa: add ARB_texture_stencil8 support (v4)
if we support stencil texturing, enable texture_stencil8
there is no requirement to support native S8 for this,
the texture can be converted to x24s8 fine.
v2: fold fixes from Marek in:
a) put S8 last in the list
b) fix renderable to always test for d/s renderable
fixup the texture case to use a stencil only format
for picking the format for the texture view.
v3: hit fallback for getteximage
v4: put s8 back in front, it shouldn't get picked now (Ilia)
</pre>
<li>If someone tested your patch, document it with a line like this:
<pre>
Tested-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
</pre>
<li>If the patch was reviewed (usually the case) or acked by someone,
that should be documented with:
<pre>
Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
</pre>
<li>If sending later revision of a patch, add all the tags - ack, r-b,
Cc: mesa-stable and/or other. This provides reviewers with quick feedback if the
patch has already been reviewed.
</ul>
<h2 id="testing">Testing Patches</h2>
<p>
It should go without saying that patches must be tested. In general,
do whatever testing is prudent.
</p>
<p>
You should always run the Mesa test suite before submitting patches.
The test suite can be run using the 'meson test' command. All tests
must pass before patches will be accepted, this may mean you have
to update the tests themselves.
</p>
<p>
Whenever possible and applicable, test the patch with
<a href="https://piglit.freedesktop.org">Piglit</a> and/or
<a href="https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/deqp/">dEQP</a>
to check for regressions.
</p>
<p>
As mentioned at the beginning, patches should be bisectable.
A good way to test this is to make use of the `git rebase` command,
to run your tests on each commit. Assuming your branch is based off
<code>origin/master</code>, you can run:
</p>
<pre>
$ git rebase --interactive --exec "meson test -C build/" origin/master
</pre>
<p>
replacing <code>"meson test"</code> with whatever other test you want to
run.
</p>
<h2 id="submit">Submitting Patches</h2>
<p>
Patches are submitted to the Mesa project via a
<a href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa">GitLab</a> Merge Request.
</p>
<p>
Add labels to your MR to help reviewers find it. For example:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Mesa changes affecting all drivers: mesa
<li>Hardware vendor specific code: amd, intel, nvidia, ...
<li>Driver specific code: anvil, freedreno, i965, iris, radeonsi,
radv, vc4, ...
<li>Other tag examples: gallium, util
</ul>
<p>
Tick the following when creating the MR. It allows developers to
rebase your work on top of master.
</p>
<pre>Allow commits from members who can merge to the target branch</pre>
<p>
If you revise your patches based on code review and push an update
to your branch, you should maintain a <strong>clean</strong> history
in your patches. There should not be "fixup" patches in the history.
The series should be buildable and functional after every commit
whenever you push the branch.
</p>
<p>
It is your responsibility to keep the MR alive and making progress,
as there are no guarantees that a Mesa dev will independently take
interest in it.
</p>
<p>
Some other notes:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Make changes and update your branch based on feedback
<li>After an update, for the feedback you handled, close the
feedback discussion with the "Resolve Discussion" button. This way
the reviewers know which feedback got handled and which didn't.
<li>Old, stale MR may be closed, but you can reopen it if you
still want to pursue the changes
<li>You should periodically check to see if your MR needs to be
rebased
<li>Make sure your MR is closed if your patches get pushed outside
of GitLab
<li>Please send MRs from a personal fork rather than from the main
Mesa repository, as it clutters it unnecessarily.
</ul>
<h2 id="reviewing">Reviewing Patches</h2>
<p>
To participate in code review, you can monitor the GitLab Mesa
<a href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests">Merge
Requests</a> page, and/or register for notifications in your gitlab
settings.
</p>
<p>
When you've reviewed a patch, please be unambiguous about your review.
That is, state either
</p>
<pre>
Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
</pre>
or
<pre>
Acked-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
</pre>
<p>
Rather than saying just "LGTM" or "Seems OK".
</p>
<p>
If small changes are suggested, it's OK to say something like:
</p>
<pre>
With the above fixes, Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
</pre>
<p>
which tells the patch author that the patch can be committed, as long
as the issues are resolved first.
</p>
<p>
These Reviewed-by, Acked-by, and Tested-by tags should also be amended
into commits in a MR before it is merged.
</p>
<p>
When providing a Reviewed-by, Acked-by, or Tested-by tag in a gitlab MR,
enclose the tag in backticks:
</p>
<pre>
`Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@example.com>`</pre>
<p>
This is the markdown format for literal, and will prevent gitlab from hiding
the < and > symbols.
</p>
<p>
Review by non-experts is encouraged. Understanding how someone else
goes about solving a problem is a great way to learn your way around
the project. The submitter is expected to evaluate whether they have
an appropriate amount of review feedback from people who also
understand the code before merging their patches.
</p>
<h2 id="nominations">Nominating a commit for a stable branch</h2>
<p>
There are three ways to nominate a patch for inclusion in the stable branch and
release.
</p>
<ul>
<li> By adding the Cc: mesa-stable@ tag as described below.
<li> By adding the fixes: tag as described below.
<li> By submitting a merge request against the "staging/year.quarter" branch on gitlab.
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Please <strong>DO NOT</strong> send patches to
mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org, it is not monitored actively and is a
historical artifact.
</p>
<p>
If you are not the author of the original patch, please Cc: them in your
nomination request.
</p>
<p>
The current patch status can be observed in the <a href="releasing.html#stagingbranch">staging branch</a>.
</p>
<h3 id="thetag">The stable tag</h3>
<p>
If you want a commit to be applied to a stable branch,
you should add an appropriate note to the commit message.
</p>
<p>
Using a "fixes tag" as described in <a href="#formatting">Patch formatting</a>
is the preferred way to nominate a commit that you know ahead of time should be
backported. There are scripts that will figure out which releases to apply the
patch to automatically, so you don't need to figure it out.
</p>
<p>
Alternatively, you may use a "CC:" tag.
Here are some examples of such a note:
</p>
<pre>
CC: 20.0 19.3 <mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org>
</pre>
<p>
Using the CC tag <strong>should</strong> include the stable branches you want
to nominate the patch to. If you do not provide any version it is nominated to
all active stable branches.
</p>
<h2 id="criteria">Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch</h2>
Mesa has a designated release manager for each stable branch, and the release
manager is the only developer that should be pushing changes to these branches.
Everyone else should nominate patches using the mechanism described above.
The following rules define which patches are accepted and which are not. The
stable-release manager is also given broad discretion in rejecting patches
that have been nominated.
<ul>
<li>Patch must conform with the <a href="#guidelines">Basic guidelines</a></li>
<li>Patch must have landed in master first. In case where the original
patch is too large and/or otherwise contradicts with the rules set within, a
backport is appropriate.</li>
<li>It must not introduce a regression - be that build or runtime wise.
Note: If the regression is due to faulty piglit/dEQP/CTS/other test the
latter must be fixed first. A reference to the offending test(s) and
respective fix(es) should be provided in the nominated patch.</li>
<li>Patch cannot be larger than 100 lines.</li>
<li>Patches that move code around with no functional change should be
rejected.</li>
<li>Patch must be a bug fix and not a new feature.
Note: An exception to this rule, are hardware-enabling "features". For
example, <a href="#backports">backports</a> of new code to support a
newly-developed hardware product can be accepted if they can be reasonably
determined not to have effects on other hardware.</li>
<li>Patch must be reviewed, For example, the commit message has Reviewed-by,
Signed-off-by, or Tested-by tags from someone but the author.</li>
<li>Performance patches are considered only if they provide information
about the hardware, program in question and observed improvement. Use numbers
to represent your measurements.</li>
</ul>
If the patch complies with the rules it will be
<a href="releasing.html#pickntest">cherry-picked</a>. Alternatively the release
manager will reply to the patch in question stating why the patch has been
rejected or would request a backport.
The stable-release manager may at times need to force-push changes to the
stable branches, for example, to drop a previously-picked patch that was later
identified as causing a regression). These force-pushes may cause changes to
be lost from the stable branch if developers push things directly. Consider
yourself warned.
<h2 id="backports">Sending backports for the stable branch</h2>
<p>
By default merge conflicts are resolved by the stable-release manager. The
release maintainer should resolve trivial conflicts, but for complex conflicts
they should ask the original author to provide a backport or de-nominate the
patch.
</p>
<p>
For patches that either need to be nominated after they've landed in master, or
that are known ahead of time to not not apply cleanly to a stable branch (such
as due to a rename), using a gitlab MR is most appropriate.
The MR should be based on and target the staging/year.quarter branch, not on
the year.quarter branch, per the stable branch policy.
Assigning the MR to release maintainer for said branch or mentioning them is
helpful, but not required.
</p>
<h2 id="gittips">Git tips</h2>
<ul>
<li><code>git rebase -i ...</code> is your friend. Don't be afraid to use it.
<li>Apply a fixup to commit FOO.
<pre>
git add ...
git commit --fixup=FOO
git rebase -i --autosquash ...
</pre>
<li>Test for build breakage between patches e.g last 8 commits.
<pre>
git rebase -i --exec="ninja -C build/" HEAD~8
</pre>
<li>Sets the default mailing address for your repo.
<pre>
git config --local sendemail.to mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
</pre>
<li> Add version to subject line of patch series in this case for the last 8
commits before sending.
<pre>
git send-email --subject-prefix="PATCH v4" HEAD~8
git send-email -v4 @~8 # shorter version, inherited from git format-patch
</pre>
</ul>
</div>
</body>
</html>
|
