Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89689
++ Fixes: d7b3707c612 "util/disk_cache: use stat() to check if entry is a directory" +
@@ -104,6 +110,9 @@ that should be documented with:
Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
+
- $ scripts/get_reviewer.pl --help # to get the the help screen
+ $ scripts/get_reviewer.pl --help # to get the help screen
$ scripts/get_reviewer.pl -f src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_android.c
Rob Herring (reviewer:ANDROID EGL SUPPORT,added_lines:188/700=27%,removed_lines:58/283=20%)
Tomasz Figa (reviewer:ANDROID EGL SUPPORT,authored:12/41=29%,added_lines:308/700=44%,removed_lines:115/283=41%)
@@ -137,7 +146,7 @@ to update the tests themselves.
Whenever possible and applicable, test the patch with
-Piglit and/or
+Piglit and/or
dEQP
to check for regressions.
@@ -202,7 +211,7 @@ as the issues are resolved first.
Nominating a commit for a stable branch
-There are three ways to nominate patch for inclusion of the stable branch and
+There are three ways to nominate a patch for inclusion in the stable branch and
release.
@@ -229,35 +238,74 @@ Here are some examples of such a note:
- CC: <mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org>
- - CC: "9.2 10.0" <mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org>
- - CC: "10.0" <mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org>
Simply adding the CC to the mesa-stable list address is adequate to nominate
-the commit for the most-recently-created stable branch. It is only necessary
-to specify a specific branch name, (such as "9.2 10.0" or "10.0" in the
-examples above), if you want to nominate the commit for an older stable
-branch. And, as in these examples, you can nominate the commit for the older
-branch in addition to the more recent branch, or nominate the commit
-exclusively for the older branch.
+the commit for all the active stable branches. If the commit is not applicable
+for said branch the stable-release manager will reply stating so.
This "CC" syntax for patch nomination will cause patches to automatically be
copied to the mesa-stable@ mailing list when you use "git send-email" to send
patches to the mesa-dev@ mailing list. If you prefer using --suppress-cc that
-won't have any effect negative effect on the patch nomination.
+won't have any negative effect on the patch nomination.
+
+
+Note: by removing the tag [as the commit is pushed] the patch is
+explicitly rejected from inclusion in the stable branch(es).
+
+Thus, drop the line only if you want to cancel the nomination.
+
Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch
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 simply nominate patches using the mechanism
-described above.
+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.
+
+
+ - Patch must conform with the Basic guidelines
+
+ - 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.
+
+ - 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.
+
+ - Patch cannot be larger than 100 lines.
-The stable-release manager will work with the list of nominated patches, and
-for each patch that meets the criteria below will cherry-pick the patch with:
-git cherry-pick -x <commit>. The -x option is
-important so that the picked patch references the commit ID of the original
-patch.
+ - Patches that move code around with no functional change should be
+ rejected.
+
+ - Patch must be a bug fix and not a new feature.
+
+ Note: An exception to this rule, are hardware-enabling "features". For
+ example, backports 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.
+
+ - Patch must be reviewed, For example, the commit message has Reviewed-by,
+ Signed-off-by, or Tested-by tags from someone but the author.
+
+ - Performance patches are considered only if they provide information
+ about the hardware, program in question and observed improvement. Use numbers
+ to represent your measurements.
+
+
+If the patch complies with the rules it will be
+cherry-picked. Alternatively the release
+manager will reply to the patch in question stating why the patch has been
+rejected or would request a backport.
+
+A summary of all the picked/rejected patches will be presented in the
+pre-release announcement.
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
@@ -265,75 +313,26 @@ 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.
-The stable-release manager is also given broad discretion in rejecting patches
-that have been nominated for the stable branch. The most basic rule is that
-the stable branch is for bug fixes only, (no new features, no
-regressions). Here is a non-exhaustive list of some reasons that a patch may
-be rejected:
-
-
- - Patch introduces a regression. Any reported build breakage or other
- regression caused by a particular patch, (game no longer work, piglit test
- changes from PASS to FAIL), is justification for rejecting a patch.
-
- - Patch is too large, (say, larger than 100 lines)
-
- - Patch is not a fix. For example, a commit that moves code around with no
- functional change should be rejected.
-
- - Patch fix is not clearly described. For example, a commit message
- of only a single line, no description of the bug, no mention of bugzilla,
- etc.
-
- - Patch has not obviously been reviewed, For example, the commit message
- has no Reviewed-by, Signed-off-by, nor Tested-by tags from anyone but the
- author.
-
- - Patch has not already been merged to the master branch. As a rule, bug
- fixes should never be applied first to a stable branch. Patches should land
- first on the master branch and then be cherry-picked to a stable
- branch. (This is to avoid future releases causing regressions if the patch
- is not also applied to master.) The only things that might look like
- exceptions would be backports of patches from master that happen to look
- significantly different.
-
- - Patch depends on too many other patches. Ideally, all stable-branch
- patches should be self-contained. It sometimes occurs that a single, logical
- bug-fix occurs as two separate patches on master, (such as an original
- patch, then a subsequent fix-up to that patch). In such a case, these two
- patches should be squashed into a single, self-contained patch for the
- stable branch. (Of course, if the squashing makes the patch too large, then
- that could be a reason to reject the patch.)
-
- - Patch includes new feature development, not bug fixes. New OpenGL
- features, extensions, etc. should be applied to Mesa master and included in
- the next major release. Stable releases are intended only for bug fixes.
-
- Note: As an exception to this rule, the stable-release manager may accept
- hardware-enabling "features". For example, backports of new code to support
- a newly-developed hardware product can be accepted if they can be reasonably
- determined to not have effects on other hardware.
-
- - Patch is a performance optimization. As a rule, performance patches are
- not candidates for the stable branch. The only exception might be a case
- where an application's performance was recently severely impacted so as to
- become unusable. The fix for this performance regression could then be
- considered for a stable branch. The optimization must also be
- non-controversial and the patches still need to meet the other criteria of
- being simple and self-contained
-
- - Patch introduces a new failure mode (such as an assert). While the new
- assert might technically be correct, for example to make Mesa more
- conformant, this is not the kind of "bug fix" we want in a stable
- release. The potential problem here is that an OpenGL program that was
- previously working, (even if technically non-compliant with the
- specification), could stop working after this patch. So that would be a
- regression that is unacceptable for the stable branch.
-
+Sending backports for the stable branch
+By default merge conflicts are resolved by the stable-release manager. In which
+case he/she should provide a comment about the changes required, alongside the
+Conflicts section. Summary of which will be provided in the
+pre-release announcement.
+
+Developers are interested in sending backports are recommended to use either a
+[BACKPORT #branch] subject prefix or provides similar information
+within the commit summary.
Git tips
+git rebase -i ... is your friend. Don't be afraid to use it.
+- Apply a fixup to commit FOO.
+
+ git add ...
+ git commit --fixup=FOO
+ git rebase -i --autosquash ...
+
- Test for build breakage between patches e.g last 8 commits.
git rebase -i --exec="make -j4" HEAD~8