Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

Porter's handbook: Mention git-format-patch(1) in using git to make patches
AcceptedPublic

Authored by lwhsu on Wed, Oct 13, 5:08 PM.

Details

Reviewers
carlavilla
ygy
Group Reviewers
docs
portmgr

Diff Detail

Repository
R9 FreeBSD doc repository
Lint
No Linters Available
Unit
No Unit Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 42251
Build 39139: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

lwhsu requested review of this revision.Wed, Oct 13, 5:08 PM
lwhsu created this revision.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Wed, Oct 13, 5:11 PM

Maybe worth mentioning context lines (-U9999) and only generating a patch for the requested commit itself (-1)

ygy added inline comments.
documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc
182
diizzy added inline comments.
documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc
121

This is only true if you use format-patch?

This is only true if you use format-patch?

I believe you need to use git-am(1) to get the metadata (author, timestamps, et cetera) applied.

documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc
120–122

Shouldn't git-am(1) be mentioned for git-format-patch?

121

This is only true if you use format-patch?

A few minor nits.

documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc
120–122
121

Or alternatively, "method for submitting".

This revision now requires review to proceed.Tue, Oct 19, 8:52 AM

Looks good to me, but let's hear from other reviewers involved here as well.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Tue, Oct 19, 8:17 PM
imp added inline comments.
documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc
182

"Where foo is replaced with the first line of the commit message."

183

I'd suggest that "Once the patch is accepted upstream" here. There's no harm in keeping branches around and it's a pain in the butt to try to reconstruct the branch from the hashes in the diffs (which aren't the commit hash, but the object hash).