mirror of
https://git.yoctoproject.org/poky
synced 2026-04-04 23:02:22 +02:00
- Shifting the focus to multiple changes instead of just one - Advising to create a branch for changes - Removing unnecessary or too verbose explanations - Adding useful resources and examples (From yocto-docs rev: e7e47121fd979e034f8f40a043912640a6a25a5e) Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
506 lines
24 KiB
ReStructuredText
506 lines
24 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-2.0-UK
|
||
|
||
Contributing Changes to a Component
|
||
************************************
|
||
|
||
Contributions to the Yocto Project and OpenEmbedded are very welcome.
|
||
Because the system is extremely configurable and flexible, we recognize
|
||
that developers will want to extend, configure or optimize it for their
|
||
specific uses.
|
||
|
||
.. _ref-why-mailing-lists:
|
||
|
||
Contributing through mailing lists --- Why not using web-based workflows?
|
||
=========================================================================
|
||
|
||
Both Yocto Project and OpenEmbedded have many key components that are
|
||
maintained by patches being submitted on mailing lists. We appreciate this
|
||
approach does look a little old fashioned when other workflows are available
|
||
through web technology such as GitHub, GitLab and others. Since we are often
|
||
asked this question, we’ve decided to document the reasons for using mailing
|
||
lists.
|
||
|
||
One significant factor is that we value peer review. When a change is proposed
|
||
to many of the core pieces of the project, it helps to have many eyes of review
|
||
go over them. Whilst there is ultimately one maintainer who needs to make the
|
||
final call on accepting or rejecting a patch, the review is made by many eyes
|
||
and the exact people reviewing it are likely unknown to the maintainer. It is
|
||
often the surprise reviewer that catches the most interesting issues!
|
||
|
||
This is in contrast to the "GitHub" style workflow where either just a
|
||
maintainer makes that review, or review is specifically requested from
|
||
nominated people. We believe there is significant value added to the codebase
|
||
by this peer review and that moving away from mailing lists would be to the
|
||
detriment of our code.
|
||
|
||
We also need to acknowledge that many of our developers are used to this
|
||
mailing list workflow and have worked with it for years, with tools and
|
||
processes built around it. Changing away from this would result in a loss
|
||
of key people from the project, which would again be to its detriment.
|
||
|
||
The projects are acutely aware that potential new contributors find the
|
||
mailing list approach off-putting and would prefer a web-based GUI.
|
||
Since we don’t believe that can work for us, the project is aiming to ensure
|
||
`patchwork <https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/>`__ is available to help track
|
||
patch status and also looking at how tooling can provide more feedback to users
|
||
about patch status. We are looking at improving tools such as ``patchtest`` to
|
||
test user contributions before they hit the mailing lists and also at better
|
||
documenting how to use such workflows since we recognise that whilst this was
|
||
common knowledge a decade ago, it might not be as familiar now.
|
||
|
||
Finding a Suitable Mailing List
|
||
===============================
|
||
|
||
The Yocto Project and OpenEmbedded use a mailing list and a patch-based
|
||
workflow that is similar to the Linux kernel but contains important
|
||
differences. In general, there is a mailing list through which you can submit
|
||
patches. You should send patches to the appropriate mailing list so that they
|
||
can be reviewed and merged by the appropriate maintainer. The specific mailing
|
||
list you need to use depends on the location of the code you are
|
||
changing. Each component (e.g. layer) should have a ``README`` file that
|
||
indicates where to send the changes and which process to follow.
|
||
|
||
You can send the patches to the mailing list using whichever approach you
|
||
feel comfortable with to generate the patches. Once sent, the patches are
|
||
usually reviewed by the community at large. If somebody has concerns
|
||
any of the the patches, they will usually voice their concern over the mailing
|
||
list. If patches do not receive any negative reviews, the maintainer
|
||
of the affected layer typically takes them, tests them, and then
|
||
based on successful testing, merges them.
|
||
|
||
The "poky" repository, which is the Yocto Project's reference build
|
||
environment, is a hybrid repository that contains several individual
|
||
pieces (e.g. BitBake, Metadata, documentation, and so forth) built using
|
||
the combo-layer tool. The upstream location used for submitting changes
|
||
varies by component:
|
||
|
||
- *Core Metadata:* Send your patches to the
|
||
:oe_lists:`openembedded-core </g/openembedded-core>`
|
||
mailing list. For example, a change to anything under the ``meta`` or
|
||
``scripts`` directories should be sent to this mailing list.
|
||
|
||
- *BitBake:* For changes to BitBake (i.e. anything under the
|
||
``bitbake`` directory), send your patches to the
|
||
:oe_lists:`bitbake-devel </g/bitbake-devel>`
|
||
mailing list.
|
||
|
||
- *"meta-\*" trees:* These trees contain Metadata. Use the
|
||
:yocto_lists:`poky </g/poky>` mailing list.
|
||
|
||
- *Documentation*: For changes to the Yocto Project documentation, use the
|
||
:yocto_lists:`docs </g/docs>` mailing list.
|
||
|
||
For changes to other layers hosted in the Yocto Project source
|
||
repositories (i.e. ``yoctoproject.org``) and tools use the
|
||
:yocto_lists:`yocto </g/yocto/>` general mailing list.
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
Sometimes a layer's documentation specifies to use a particular
|
||
mailing list. If so, use that list.
|
||
|
||
For additional recipes that do not fit into the core Metadata, you
|
||
should determine which layer the recipe should go into and submit the
|
||
changes in the manner recommended by the documentation (e.g. the
|
||
``README`` file) supplied with the layer. If in doubt, please ask on the
|
||
:yocto_lists:`yocto </g/yocto/>` general mailing list or on the
|
||
:oe_lists:`openembedded-devel </g/openembedded-devel>` mailing list.
|
||
|
||
You can also push changes upstream and request a maintainer to pull the
|
||
changes into the component's upstream repository. You do this by pushing
|
||
to a contribution repository that is upstream. See the
|
||
":ref:`overview-manual/development-environment:git workflows and the yocto project`"
|
||
section in the Yocto Project Overview and Concepts Manual for additional
|
||
concepts on working in the Yocto Project development environment.
|
||
|
||
Maintainers commonly use ``-next`` branches to test submissions prior to
|
||
merging patches. Thus, you can get an idea of the status of a patch based on
|
||
whether the patch has been merged into one of these branches. The commonly
|
||
used testing branches for OpenEmbedded-Core are as follows:
|
||
|
||
- *openembedded-core "master-next" branch:* This branch is part of the
|
||
:oe_git:`openembedded-core </openembedded-core/>` repository and contains
|
||
proposed changes to the core metadata.
|
||
|
||
- *poky "master-next" branch:* This branch is part of the
|
||
:yocto_git:`poky </poky/>` repository and combines proposed
|
||
changes to BitBake, the core metadata and the poky distro.
|
||
|
||
Similarly, stable branches maintained by the project may have corresponding
|
||
``-next`` branches which collect proposed changes. For example,
|
||
``&DISTRO_NAME_NO_CAP;-next`` and ``&DISTRO_NAME_NO_CAP_MINUS_ONE;-next``
|
||
branches in both the "openembdedded-core" and "poky" repositories.
|
||
|
||
Other layers may have similar testing branches but there is no formal
|
||
requirement or standard for these so please check the documentation for the
|
||
layers you are contributing to.
|
||
|
||
The following sections provide procedures for submitting changes.
|
||
|
||
Preparing Changes for Submission
|
||
================================
|
||
|
||
The first thing to do is to create a new branch in your local Git repository
|
||
for your changes, starting from the reference branch in the upstream
|
||
repository (often called ``master``)::
|
||
|
||
$ git checkout <ref-branch>
|
||
$ git checkout -b my-changes
|
||
|
||
If you have completely unrelated sets of changes to submit, you should even
|
||
create one branch for each set.
|
||
|
||
Then, in each branch, you should group your changes into small, controlled and
|
||
isolated ones. Keeping changes small and isolated aids review, makes
|
||
merging/rebasing easier and keeps the change history clean should anyone need
|
||
to refer to it in future.
|
||
|
||
To this purpose, you should create *one Git commit per change*,
|
||
corresponding to each of the patches you will eventually submit.
|
||
So, for each identified change:
|
||
|
||
#. *Stage Your Change:* Stage your change by using the ``git add``
|
||
command on each file you modified.
|
||
|
||
#. *Commit Your Change:* Commit the change by using the ``git commit``
|
||
command. Make sure your commit information follows standards by
|
||
following these accepted conventions:
|
||
|
||
- Be sure to include a "Signed-off-by:" line in the same style as
|
||
required by the Linux kernel. This can be done by using the
|
||
``git commit -s`` command. Adding this line signifies that you,
|
||
the submitter, have agreed to the `Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
|
||
<https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin>`__
|
||
as follows:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: none
|
||
|
||
Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
|
||
|
||
By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
|
||
|
||
(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
|
||
have the right to submit it under the open source license
|
||
indicated in the file; or
|
||
|
||
(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
|
||
of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
|
||
license and I have the right under that license to submit that
|
||
work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
|
||
by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
|
||
permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
|
||
in the file; or
|
||
|
||
(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
|
||
person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
|
||
it.
|
||
|
||
(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
|
||
are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
|
||
personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
|
||
maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
|
||
this project or the open source license(s) involved.
|
||
|
||
- Provide a single-line summary of the change and, if more
|
||
explanation is needed, provide more detail in the body of the
|
||
commit. This summary is typically viewable in the "shortlist" of
|
||
changes. Thus, providing something short and descriptive that
|
||
gives the reader a summary of the change is useful when viewing a
|
||
list of many commits. You should prefix this short description
|
||
with the recipe name (if changing a recipe), or else with the
|
||
short form path to the file being changed.
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
To find a suitable prefix for the commit summary, a good idea
|
||
is to look for prefixes used in previous commits touching the
|
||
same files or directories::
|
||
|
||
git log --oneline <paths>
|
||
|
||
- For the body of the commit message, provide detailed information
|
||
that describes what you changed, why you made the change, and the
|
||
approach you used. It might also be helpful if you mention how you
|
||
tested the change. Provide as much detail as you can in the body
|
||
of the commit message.
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
You do not need to provide a more detailed explanation of a
|
||
change if the change is minor to the point of the single line
|
||
summary providing all the information.
|
||
|
||
- If the change addresses a specific bug or issue that is associated
|
||
with a bug-tracking ID, include a reference to that ID in your
|
||
detailed description. For example, the Yocto Project uses a
|
||
specific convention for bug references --- any commit that addresses
|
||
a specific bug should use the following form for the detailed
|
||
description. Be sure to use the actual bug-tracking ID from
|
||
Bugzilla for bug-id::
|
||
|
||
Fixes [YOCTO #bug-id]
|
||
|
||
detailed description of change
|
||
|
||
Using Email to Submit Patches
|
||
=============================
|
||
|
||
Depending on the components changed, you need to submit the email to a
|
||
specific mailing list. For some guidance on which mailing list to use,
|
||
see the ":ref:`contributor-guide/submit-changes:finding a suitable mailing list`"
|
||
section above.
|
||
|
||
Here is the general procedure on how to create and submit patches through email:
|
||
|
||
#. *Generate Patches for your Branch:* The ``git format-patch`` command for
|
||
generate patch files for each of the commits in your branch. You need
|
||
to pass the reference branch your branch starts from::
|
||
|
||
$ git format-patch <ref-branch>
|
||
|
||
After the command is run, the current directory contains numbered
|
||
``.patch`` files for the commits in your branch.
|
||
|
||
If you have more than one patch, you should also use the ``--cover``
|
||
option with the command, which generates a cover letter as the first
|
||
"patch" in the series. You can then edit the cover letter to provide
|
||
a description for the series of patches. Run ``man git-format-patch``
|
||
for details about this command.
|
||
|
||
#. *Send the patches via email:* Send the patches to the recipients and
|
||
relevant mailing lists by using the ``git send-email`` command.
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
In order to use ``git send-email``, you must have the proper Git packages
|
||
installed on your host.
|
||
For Ubuntu, Debian, and Fedora the package is ``git-email``.
|
||
|
||
The ``git send-email`` command sends email by using a local or remote
|
||
Mail Transport Agent (MTA) such as ``msmtp``, ``sendmail``, or
|
||
through a direct ``smtp`` configuration in your Git ``~/.gitconfig``
|
||
file. If you are submitting patches through email only, it is very
|
||
important that you submit them without any whitespace or HTML
|
||
formatting that either you or your mailer introduces. The maintainer
|
||
that receives your patches needs to be able to save and apply them
|
||
directly from your emails. A good way to verify that what you are
|
||
sending will be applicable by the maintainer is to do a dry run and
|
||
send them to yourself and then save and apply them as the maintainer
|
||
would.
|
||
|
||
The ``git send-email`` command is the preferred method for sending
|
||
your patches using email since there is no risk of compromising
|
||
whitespace in the body of the message, which can occur when you use
|
||
your own mail client. The command also has several options that let
|
||
you specify recipients and perform further editing of the email
|
||
message. Here's a typical usage of this command::
|
||
|
||
git send-email --to <mailing-list-address> *.patch
|
||
|
||
Run ``man git-send-email`` for more details about this command.
|
||
|
||
The Yocto Project uses a `Patchwork instance <https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/>`__
|
||
to track the status of patches submitted to the various mailing lists and to
|
||
support automated patch testing. Each submitted patch is checked for common
|
||
mistakes and deviations from the expected patch format and submitters are
|
||
notified by ``patchtest`` if such mistakes are found. This process helps to
|
||
reduce the burden of patch review on maintainers.
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
This system is imperfect and changes can sometimes get lost in the flow.
|
||
Asking about the status of a patch or change is reasonable if the change
|
||
has been idle for a while with no feedback.
|
||
|
||
Using Scripts to Push a Change Upstream and Request a Pull
|
||
==========================================================
|
||
|
||
For larger patch series it is preferable to send a pull request which not
|
||
only includes the patch but also a pointer to a branch that can be pulled
|
||
from. This involves making a local branch for your changes, pushing this
|
||
branch to an accessible repository and then using the ``create-pull-request``
|
||
and ``send-pull-request`` scripts from openembedded-core to create and send a
|
||
patch series with a link to the branch for review.
|
||
|
||
Follow this procedure to push a change to an upstream "contrib" Git
|
||
repository once the steps in
|
||
":ref:`contributor-guide/submit-changes:preparing changes for submission`"
|
||
have been followed:
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
You can find general Git information on how to push a change upstream
|
||
in the
|
||
`Git Community Book <https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows>`__.
|
||
|
||
#. *Push Your Commits to a "Contrib" Upstream:* If you have arranged for
|
||
permissions to push to an upstream contrib repository, push the
|
||
change to that repository::
|
||
|
||
$ git push upstream_remote_repo local_branch_name
|
||
|
||
For example, suppose you have permissions to push
|
||
into the upstream ``meta-intel-contrib`` repository and you are
|
||
working in a local branch named `your_name`\ ``/README``. The following
|
||
command pushes your local commits to the ``meta-intel-contrib``
|
||
upstream repository and puts the commit in a branch named
|
||
`your_name`\ ``/README``::
|
||
|
||
$ git push meta-intel-contrib your_name/README
|
||
|
||
#. *Determine Who to Notify:* Determine the maintainer or the mailing
|
||
list that you need to notify for the change.
|
||
|
||
Before submitting any change, you need to be sure who the maintainer
|
||
is or what mailing list that you need to notify. Use either these
|
||
methods to find out:
|
||
|
||
- *Maintenance File:* Examine the ``maintainers.inc`` file, which is
|
||
located in the :term:`Source Directory` at
|
||
``meta/conf/distro/include``, to see who is responsible for code.
|
||
|
||
- *Search by File:* Using :ref:`overview-manual/development-environment:git`, you can
|
||
enter the following command to bring up a short list of all
|
||
commits against a specific file::
|
||
|
||
git shortlog -- filename
|
||
|
||
Just provide the name of the file for which you are interested. The
|
||
information returned is not ordered by history but does include a
|
||
list of everyone who has committed grouped by name. From the list,
|
||
you can see who is responsible for the bulk of the changes against
|
||
the file.
|
||
|
||
- *Find the Mailing List to Use:* See the
|
||
":ref:`contributor-guide/submit-changes:finding a suitable mailing list`"
|
||
section above.
|
||
|
||
#. *Make a Pull Request:* Notify the maintainer or the mailing list that
|
||
you have pushed a change by making a pull request.
|
||
|
||
The Yocto Project provides two scripts that conveniently let you
|
||
generate and send pull requests to the Yocto Project. These scripts
|
||
are ``create-pull-request`` and ``send-pull-request``. You can find
|
||
these scripts in the ``scripts`` directory within the
|
||
:term:`Source Directory` (e.g.
|
||
``poky/scripts``).
|
||
|
||
Using these scripts correctly formats the requests without
|
||
introducing any whitespace or HTML formatting. The maintainer that
|
||
receives your patches either directly or through the mailing list
|
||
needs to be able to save and apply them directly from your emails.
|
||
Using these scripts is the preferred method for sending patches.
|
||
|
||
First, create the pull request. For example, the following command
|
||
runs the script, specifies the upstream repository in the contrib
|
||
directory into which you pushed the change, and provides a subject
|
||
line in the created patch files::
|
||
|
||
$ poky/scripts/create-pull-request -u meta-intel-contrib -s "Updated Manual Section Reference in README"
|
||
|
||
Running this script forms ``*.patch`` files in a folder named
|
||
``pull-``\ `PID` in the current directory. One of the patch files is a
|
||
cover letter.
|
||
|
||
Before running the ``send-pull-request`` script, you must edit the
|
||
cover letter patch to insert information about your change. After
|
||
editing the cover letter, send the pull request. For example, the
|
||
following command runs the script and specifies the patch directory
|
||
and email address. In this example, the email address is a mailing
|
||
list::
|
||
|
||
$ poky/scripts/send-pull-request -p ~/meta-intel/pull-10565 -t meta-intel@lists.yoctoproject.org
|
||
|
||
You need to follow the prompts as the script is interactive.
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
For help on using these scripts, simply provide the ``-h``
|
||
argument as follows::
|
||
|
||
$ poky/scripts/create-pull-request -h
|
||
$ poky/scripts/send-pull-request -h
|
||
|
||
Responding to Patch Review
|
||
==========================
|
||
|
||
You may get feedback on your submitted patches from other community members
|
||
or from the automated patchtest service. If issues are identified in your
|
||
patch then it is usually necessary to address these before the patch will be
|
||
accepted into the project. In this case you should amend the patch according
|
||
to the feedback and submit an updated version to the relevant mailing list,
|
||
copying in the reviewers who provided feedback to the previous version of the
|
||
patch.
|
||
|
||
The patch should be amended using ``git commit --amend`` or perhaps ``git
|
||
rebase`` for more expert git users. You should also modify the ``[PATCH]``
|
||
tag in the email subject line when sending the revised patch to mark the new
|
||
iteration as ``[PATCH v2]``, ``[PATCH v3]``, etc as appropriate. This can be
|
||
done by passing the ``-v`` argument to ``git format-patch`` with a version
|
||
number.
|
||
|
||
Lastly please ensure that you also test your revised changes. In particular
|
||
please don't just edit the patch file written out by ``git format-patch`` and
|
||
resend it.
|
||
|
||
Submitting Changes to Stable Release Branches
|
||
=============================================
|
||
|
||
The process for proposing changes to a Yocto Project stable branch differs
|
||
from the steps described above. Changes to a stable branch must address
|
||
identified bugs or CVEs and should be made carefully in order to avoid the
|
||
risk of introducing new bugs or breaking backwards compatibility. Typically
|
||
bug fixes must already be accepted into the master branch before they can be
|
||
backported to a stable branch unless the bug in question does not affect the
|
||
master branch or the fix on the master branch is unsuitable for backporting.
|
||
|
||
The list of stable branches along with the status and maintainer for each
|
||
branch can be obtained from the
|
||
:yocto_wiki:`Releases wiki page </Releases>`.
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
Changes will not typically be accepted for branches which are marked as
|
||
End-Of-Life (EOL).
|
||
|
||
With this in mind, the steps to submit a change for a stable branch are as
|
||
follows:
|
||
|
||
#. *Identify the bug or CVE to be fixed:* This information should be
|
||
collected so that it can be included in your submission.
|
||
|
||
See :ref:`dev-manual/vulnerabilities:checking for vulnerabilities`
|
||
for details about CVE tracking.
|
||
|
||
#. *Check if the fix is already present in the master branch:* This will
|
||
result in the most straightforward path into the stable branch for the
|
||
fix.
|
||
|
||
#. *If the fix is present in the master branch --- submit a backport request
|
||
by email:* You should send an email to the relevant stable branch
|
||
maintainer and the mailing list with details of the bug or CVE to be
|
||
fixed, the commit hash on the master branch that fixes the issue and
|
||
the stable branches which you would like this fix to be backported to.
|
||
|
||
#. *If the fix is not present in the master branch --- submit the fix to the
|
||
master branch first:* This will ensure that the fix passes through the
|
||
project's usual patch review and test processes before being accepted.
|
||
It will also ensure that bugs are not left unresolved in the master
|
||
branch itself. Once the fix is accepted in the master branch a backport
|
||
request can be submitted as above.
|
||
|
||
#. *If the fix is unsuitable for the master branch --- submit a patch
|
||
directly for the stable branch:* This method should be considered as a
|
||
last resort. It is typically necessary when the master branch is using
|
||
a newer version of the software which includes an upstream fix for the
|
||
issue or when the issue has been fixed on the master branch in a way
|
||
that introduces backwards incompatible changes. In this case follow the
|
||
steps in ":ref:`contributor-guide/submit-changes:preparing changes for submission`" and
|
||
":ref:`contributor-guide/submit-changes:using email to submit patches`"
|
||
but modify the subject header of your patch
|
||
email to include the name of the stable branch which you are
|
||
targetting. This can be done using the ``--subject-prefix`` argument to
|
||
``git format-patch``, for example to submit a patch to the dunfell
|
||
branch use
|
||
``git format-patch --subject-prefix='&DISTRO_NAME_NO_CAP_MINUS_ONE;][PATCH' ...``.
|