linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/3] docs: submitting-patches: move split_changes before describe

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri,  1 Mar 2024 14:46:36 +0100
From: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	workflows@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] docs: submitting-patches: move split_changes before describe_change

The top-level structure should basically be along the temporal order of
things: Prepare a patch, Post a patch, Respond to review, Send reworked
patches, Be patient before resending.

Start bringing submitting-patches into this clear temporal flow.
Move 'Separate your changes' before 'Describe your changes'.

Note that this is also the order in 5.Posting. The same content is there
covered in Patch preparation and Patch formatting.

Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
---
 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 68 ++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index 2ec0c0d7d68f..37925cacc5cc 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -40,6 +40,40 @@ patches prepared against those trees.  See the **T:** entry for the subsystem
 in the MAINTAINERS file to find that tree, or simply ask the maintainer if
 the tree is not listed there.
 
+.. _split_changes:
+
+Separate your changes
+---------------------
+
+Separate each **logical change** into a separate patch.
+
+For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance
+enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two
+or more patches.  If your changes include an API update, and a new
+driver which uses that new API, separate those into two patches.
+
+On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files,
+group those changes into a single patch.  Thus a single logical change
+is contained within a single patch.
+
+The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
+change that can be verified by reviewers.  Each patch should be justifiable
+on its own merits.
+
+If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
+complete, that is OK.  Simply note **"this patch depends on patch X"**
+in your patch description.
+
+When dividing your change into a series of patches, take special care to
+ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the
+series.  Developers using ``git bisect`` to track down a problem can end up
+splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you
+introduce bugs in the middle.
+
+If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
+then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
+
+
 .. _describe_changes:
 
 Describe your changes
@@ -163,40 +197,6 @@ An example call::
 	$ git log -1 --pretty=fixes 54a4f0239f2e
 	Fixes: 54a4f0239f2e ("KVM: MMU: make kvm_mmu_zap_page() return the number of pages it actually freed")
 
-.. _split_changes:
-
-Separate your changes
----------------------
-
-Separate each **logical change** into a separate patch.
-
-For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance
-enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two
-or more patches.  If your changes include an API update, and a new
-driver which uses that new API, separate those into two patches.
-
-On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files,
-group those changes into a single patch.  Thus a single logical change
-is contained within a single patch.
-
-The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
-change that can be verified by reviewers.  Each patch should be justifiable
-on its own merits.
-
-If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
-complete, that is OK.  Simply note **"this patch depends on patch X"**
-in your patch description.
-
-When dividing your change into a series of patches, take special care to
-ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the
-series.  Developers using ``git bisect`` to track down a problem can end up
-splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you
-introduce bugs in the middle.
-
-If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
-then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
-
-
 
 Style-check your changes
 ------------------------
-- 
2.43.2