Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As stated, the following patch adds a list of patch submission guidelines > based on Simon Riggs suggestions to the developers FAQ.
A couple minor comments ... > ! <li>Ensure that your patch is generated against the most recent > version > ! of the code. If you are developing new features, this should be > ! CVS HEAD; if it is a bug fix, this will be the most recent > version of > ! the branch which suffers from the bug. For more on branches in > ! PostgreSQL, see <a href="#1.15">1.15</a>.</li> Actually, I'd suggest working against HEAD in all cases; the committers are used to adapting patches backwards, less so to adapting forwards. (If a bug is fixed in newer releases and not older ones, there is probably a good reason why not; so I don't see the point of encouraging people to submit patches for bugs that only exist in older releases, as this text seems to do.) > ! <li>The patch should be generated in contextual diff format and > should > ! be applicable from the root directory. If you are unfamiliar > with > ! this, you might find the script > <I>src/tools/makediff/difforig</I> > ! useful. Unified diffs are only preferrable if the file changes > are > ! single-line changes and do not rely on the surrounding > lines.</li> I'd like the policy to be "contextual diffs are preferred", full stop. Unidiffs are more compact but they sacrifice readability of the patch (IMHO anyway) and when you are preparing a patch you should be thinking first in terms of making it readable for the reviewers/committers. Some things that follow along with the readability mandate, and should be brought out somewhere here: * avoid unnecessary whitespace changes. They just distract the reviewer, and your formatting changes will probably not survive the next pgindent run anyway. * try to follow the project's code-layout conventions; again, this makes it easier for the reviewer, and there's no long-term point in trying to do it differently than pgindent would. > ! <li>If your patch changes any existing defaults, you will need > to > ! explain why this is *required* or the patch will likely be > rejected. > ! New feature patches should also be accompanied by doc patches, > and > ! pointers to any relevant sections of the SQL standard are > recommended > ! as well. See <a href="#1.16">1.16</a> for more information on > the > ! SQL standards</li> The above should be two items not one --- as written it downplays the importance of providing documentation, which is something we must talk up not down. (Bruce's original wording of the FAQ item I think underplays it; we should absolutely not give the impression that documentation is optional.) I'm not sticky about the docs being properly-marked-up SGML, but I think you should at least have expended the effort to explain what you are doing in English separate from the code. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org