Re: [HACKERS] Patch Submission Guidelines

Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> 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