docs/submittingpatches.html - platform/external/mesa3d - Gitiles

 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
 <html lang="en">
 <head>
   <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
   <title>Submitting patches</title>
   <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="mesa.css">
 </head>
 <body>

 <div class="header">
   <h1>The Mesa 3D Graphics Library</h1>
 </div>

 <iframe src="contents.html"></iframe>
 <div class="content">

 <h1>Submitting patches</h1>


 <ul>
 <li><a href="#guidelines">Basic guidelines</a>
 <li><a href="#formatting">Patch formatting</a>
 <li><a href="#testing">Testing Patches</a>
 <li><a href="#mailing">Mailing Patches</a>
 <li><a href="#reviewing">Reviewing Patches</a>
 <li><a href="#nominations">Nominating a commit for a stable branch</a>
 <li><a href="#criteria">Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch</a>
 <li><a href="#backports">Sending backports for the stable branch</a>
 <li><a href="#gittips">Git tips</a>
 </ul>

 <h2 id="guidelines">Basic guidelines</h2>

 <ul>
 <li>Patches should not mix code changes with code formatting changes (except,
 perhaps, in very trivial cases.)
 <li>Code patches should follow Mesa
 <a href="codingstyle.html" target="_parent">coding conventions</a>.
 <li>Whenever possible, patches should only effect individual Mesa/Gallium
 components.
 <li>Patches should never introduce build breaks and should be bisectable (see
 <code>git bisect</code>.)
 <li>Patches should be properly <a href="#formatting">formatted</a>.
 <li>Patches should be sufficiently <a href="#testing">tested</a> before submitting.
 <li>Patches should be submitted to <a href="#mailing">mesa-dev</a>
 for <a href="#reviewing">review</a> using <code>git send-email</code>.

 </ul>

 <h2 id="formatting">Patch formatting</h2>

 <ul>
 <li>Lines should be limited to 75 characters or less so that git logs
 displayed in 80-column terminals avoid line wrapping.  Note that git
 log uses 4 spaces of indentation (4 + 75 &lt; 80).
 <li>The first line should be a short, concise summary of the change prefixed
 with a module name.  Examples:
 <pre>
     mesa: Add support for querying GL_VERTEX_ATTRIB_ARRAY_LONG

     gallium: add PIPE_CAP_DEVICE_RESET_STATUS_QUERY

     i965: Fix missing type in local variable declaration.
 </pre>
 <li>Subsequent patch comments should describe the change in more detail,
 if needed.  For example:
 <pre>
     i965: Remove end-of-thread SEND alignment code.

     This was present in Eric's initial implementation of the compaction code
     for Sandybridge (commit 077d01b6). There is no documentation saying this
     is necessary, and removing it causes no regressions in piglit on any
     platform.
 </pre>
 <li>A "Signed-off-by:" line is not required, but not discouraged either.
 <li>If a patch addresses a bugzilla issue, that should be noted in the
 patch comment.  For example:
 <pre>
    Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89689
 </pre>
 <li>If a patch addresses a issue introduced with earlier commit, that should be
 noted in the patch comment.  For example:
 <pre>
    Fixes: d7b3707c612 "util/disk_cache: use stat() to check if entry is a directory"
 </pre>
 <li>If there have been several revisions to a patch during the review
 process, they should be noted such as in this example:
 <pre>
     st/mesa: add ARB_texture_stencil8 support (v4)

     if we support stencil texturing, enable texture_stencil8
     there is no requirement to support native S8 for this,
     the texture can be converted to x24s8 fine.

     v2: fold fixes from Marek in:
        a) put S8 last in the list
        b) fix renderable to always test for d/s renderable
         fixup the texture case to use a stencil only format
         for picking the format for the texture view.
     v3: hit fallback for getteximage
     v4: put s8 back in front, it shouldn't get picked now (Ilia)
 </pre>
 <li>If someone tested your patch, document it with a line like this:
 <pre>
     Tested-by: Joe Hacker &lt;jhacker@foo.com&gt;
 </pre>
 <li>If the patch was reviewed (usually the case) or acked by someone,
 that should be documented with:
 <pre>
     Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker &lt;jhacker@foo.com&gt;
     Acked-by: Joe Hacker &lt;jhacker@foo.com&gt;
 </pre>
 <li>If sending later revision of a patch, add all the tags - ack, r-b,
 Cc: mesa-stable and/or other. This provides reviewers with quick feedback if the
 patch has already been reviewed.
 <li>In order for your patch to reach the prospective reviewer easier/faster,
 use the script scripts/get_reviewer.pl to get a list of individuals and include
 them in the CC list.
 <br>
 Please use common sense and do <strong>not</strong> blindly add everyone.
 <br>
 <pre>
     $ scripts/get_reviewer.pl --help # to get the help screen
     $ scripts/get_reviewer.pl -f src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_android.c
     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> (reviewer:ANDROID EGL SUPPORT,added_lines:188/700=27%,removed_lines:58/283=20%)
     Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org> (reviewer:ANDROID EGL SUPPORT,authored:12/41=29%,added_lines:308/700=44%,removed_lines:115/283=41%)
     Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> (authored:13/41=32%,removed_lines:76/283=27%)
 </pre>
 </ul>


 <h2 id="testing">Testing Patches</h2>

 <p>
 It should go without saying that patches must be tested.  In general,
 do whatever testing is prudent.
 </p>

 <p>
 You should always run the Mesa test suite before submitting patches.
 The test suite can be run using the 'make check' command. All tests
 must pass before patches will be accepted, this may mean you have
 to update the tests themselves.
 </p>

 <p>
 Whenever possible and applicable, test the patch with
 <a href="https://piglit.freedesktop.org">Piglit</a> and/or
 <a href="https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/deqp/">dEQP</a>
 to check for regressions.
 </p>

 <p>
 As mentioned at the begining, patches should be bisectable.
 A good way to test this is to make use of the `git rebase` command,
 to run your tests on each commit. Assuming your branch is based off
 <code>origin/master</code>, you can run:
 <pre>
 $ git rebase --interactive --exec "make check" origin/master
 </pre>
 replacing <code>"make check"</code> with whatever other test you want to
 run.
 </p>


 <h2 id="mailing">Mailing Patches</h2>

 <p>
 Patches should be sent to the mesa-dev mailing list for review:
 <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev">
 mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org</a>.
 When submitting a patch make sure to use
 <a href="https://git-scm.com/docs/git-send-email">git send-email</a>
 rather than attaching patches to emails. Sending patches as
 attachments prevents people from being able to provide in-line review
 comments.
 </p>

 <p>
 When submitting follow-up patches you can use --in-reply-to to make v2, v3,
 etc patches show up as replies to the originals. This usually works well
 when you're sending out updates to individual patches (as opposed to
 re-sending the whole series). Using --in-reply-to makes
 it harder for reviewers to accidentally review old patches.
 </p>

 <p>
 When submitting follow-up patches you should also login to
 <a href="https://patchwork.freedesktop.org">patchwork</a> and change the
 state of your old patches to Superseded.
 </p>

 <p>
 Some companies' mail server automatically append a legal disclaimer,
 usually containing something along the lines of "The information in this
 email is confidential" and "distribution is strictly prohibited".<br/>
 These legal notices prevent us from being able to accept your patch,
 rendering the whole process pointless. Please make sure these are
 disabled before sending your patches. (Note that you may need to contact
 your email administrator for this.)
 </p>

 <h2 id="reviewing">Reviewing Patches</h2>

 <p>
 When you've reviewed a patch on the mailing list, please be unambiguous
 about your review.  That is, state either
 </p>
 <pre>
     Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker &lt;jhacker@foo.com&gt;
 </pre>
 or
 <pre>
     Acked-by: Joe Hacker &lt;jhacker@foo.com&gt;
 </pre>
 <p>
 Rather than saying just "LGTM" or "Seems OK".
 </p>

 <p>
 If small changes are suggested, it's OK to say something like:
 </p>
 <pre>
    With the above fixes, Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker &lt;jhacker@foo.com&gt;
 </pre>
 <p>
 which tells the patch author that the patch can be committed, as long
 as the issues are resolved first.
 </p>


 <h2 id="nominations">Nominating a commit for a stable branch</h2>

 <p>
 There are three ways to nominate a patch for inclusion in the stable branch and
 release.
 </p>
 <ul>
 <li> By adding the Cc: mesa-stable@ tag as described below.
 <li> Sending the commit ID (as seen in master branch) to the mesa-stable@ mailing list.
 <li> Forwarding the patch from the mesa-dev@ mailing list.
 </li>
 </ul>
 <p>
 Note: resending patch identical to one on mesa-dev@ or one that differs only
 by the extra mesa-stable@ tag is <strong>not</strong> recommended.
 </p>


 <h3 id="thetag">The stable tag</h3>

 <p>
 If you want a commit to be applied to a stable branch,
 you should add an appropriate note to the commit message.
 </p>

 <p>
 Here are some examples of such a note:
 </p>
 <ul>
   <li>CC: &lt;mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org&gt;</li>
 </ul>

 Simply adding the CC to the mesa-stable list address is adequate to nominate
 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 negative effect on the patch nomination.

 <p>
 Note: by removing the tag [as the commit is pushed] the patch is
 <strong>explicitly</strong> rejected from inclusion in the stable branch(es).
 <br>
 Thus, drop the line <strong>only</strong> if you want to cancel the nomination.
 </p>

 Alternatively, if one uses the "Fixes" tag as described in the "Patch formatting"
 section, it nominates a commit for all active stable branches that include the
 commit that is referred to.

 <h2 id="criteria">Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch</h2>

 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 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.

 <ul>
   <li>Patch must conform with the <a href="#guidelines">Basic guidelines</a></li>

   <li>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.</li>

   <li>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.</li>

   <li>Patch cannot be larger than 100 lines.</li>

   <li>Patches that move code around with no functional change should be
   rejected.</li>

   <li>Patch must be a bug fix and not a new feature.

   Note: An exception to this rule, are hardware-enabling "features". For
   example, <a href="#backports">backports</a> 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.</li>

   <li>Patch must be reviewed, For example, the commit message has Reviewed-by,
   Signed-off-by, or Tested-by tags from someone but the author.</li>

   <li>Performance patches are considered only if they provide information
   about the hardware, program in question and observed improvement. Use numbers
   to represent your measurements.</li>
 </ul>

 If the patch complies with the rules it will be
 <a href="releasing.html#pickntest">cherry-picked</a>. 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
 <a href="releasing.html#prerelease">pre-release</a> 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
 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.

 <h2 id="backports">Sending backports for the stable branch</h2>
 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
 <code>Conflicts</code> section. Summary of which will be provided in the
 <a href="releasing.html#prerelease">pre-release</a> announcement.
 <br>
 Developers are interested in sending backports are recommended to use either a
 <code>[BACKPORT #branch]</code> subject prefix or provides similar information
 within the commit summary.

 <h2 id="gittips">Git tips</h2>

 <ul>
 <li><code>git rebase -i ...</code> is your friend. Don't be afraid to use it.
 <li>Apply a fixup to commit FOO.
 <pre>
     git add ...
     git commit --fixup=FOO
     git rebase -i --autosquash ...
 </pre>
 <li>Test for build breakage between patches e.g last 8 commits.
 <pre>
     git rebase -i --exec="make -j4" HEAD~8
 </pre>
 <li>Sets the default mailing address for your repo.
 <pre>
     git config --local sendemail.to mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
 </pre>
 <li> Add version to subject line of patch series in this case for the last 8
 commits before sending.
 <pre>
     git send-email --subject-prefix="PATCH v4" HEAD~8
     git send-email -v4 @~8 # shorter version, inherited from git format-patch
 </pre>
 <li> Configure git to use the get_reviewer.pl script interactively. Thus you
 can avoid adding the world to the CC list.
 <pre>
     git config sendemail.cccmd "./scripts/get_reviewer.pl -i"
 </pre>
 </ul>


 </div>
 </body>
 </html>
	<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
	<html lang="en">
	<head>
	<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
	<title>Submitting patches</title>
	<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="mesa.css">
	</head>
	<body>

	<div class="header">
	<h1>The Mesa 3D Graphics Library</h1>
	</div>

	<iframe src="contents.html"></iframe>
	<div class="content">

	<h1>Submitting patches</h1>


	<ul>
	<li><a href="#guidelines">Basic guidelines</a>
	<li><a href="#formatting">Patch formatting</a>
	<li><a href="#testing">Testing Patches</a>
	<li><a href="#mailing">Mailing Patches</a>
	<li><a href="#reviewing">Reviewing Patches</a>
	<li><a href="#nominations">Nominating a commit for a stable branch</a>
	<li><a href="#criteria">Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch</a>
	<li><a href="#backports">Sending backports for the stable branch</a>
	<li><a href="#gittips">Git tips</a>
	</ul>

	<h2 id="guidelines">Basic guidelines</h2>

	<ul>
	<li>Patches should not mix code changes with code formatting changes (except,
	perhaps, in very trivial cases.)
	<li>Code patches should follow Mesa
	<a href="codingstyle.html" target="_parent">coding conventions</a>.
	<li>Whenever possible, patches should only effect individual Mesa/Gallium
	components.
	<li>Patches should never introduce build breaks and should be bisectable (see
	<code>git bisect</code>.)
	<li>Patches should be properly <a href="#formatting">formatted</a>.
	<li>Patches should be sufficiently <a href="#testing">tested</a> before submitting.
	<li>Patches should be submitted to <a href="#mailing">mesa-dev</a>
	for <a href="#reviewing">review</a> using <code>git send-email</code>.

	</ul>

	<h2 id="formatting">Patch formatting</h2>

	<ul>
	<li>Lines should be limited to 75 characters or less so that git logs
	displayed in 80-column terminals avoid line wrapping. Note that git
	log uses 4 spaces of indentation (4 + 75 < 80).
	<li>The first line should be a short, concise summary of the change prefixed
	with a module name. Examples:
	<pre>
	mesa: Add support for querying GL_VERTEX_ATTRIB_ARRAY_LONG

	gallium: add PIPE_CAP_DEVICE_RESET_STATUS_QUERY

	i965: Fix missing type in local variable declaration.
	</pre>
	<li>Subsequent patch comments should describe the change in more detail,
	if needed. For example:
	<pre>
	i965: Remove end-of-thread SEND alignment code.

	This was present in Eric's initial implementation of the compaction code
	for Sandybridge (commit 077d01b6). There is no documentation saying this
	is necessary, and removing it causes no regressions in piglit on any
	platform.
	</pre>
	<li>A "Signed-off-by:" line is not required, but not discouraged either.
	<li>If a patch addresses a bugzilla issue, that should be noted in the
	patch comment. For example:
	<pre>
	Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89689
	</pre>
	<li>If a patch addresses a issue introduced with earlier commit, that should be
	noted in the patch comment. For example:
	<pre>
	Fixes: d7b3707c612 "util/disk_cache: use stat() to check if entry is a directory"
	</pre>
	<li>If there have been several revisions to a patch during the review
	process, they should be noted such as in this example:
	<pre>
	st/mesa: add ARB_texture_stencil8 support (v4)

	if we support stencil texturing, enable texture_stencil8
	there is no requirement to support native S8 for this,
	the texture can be converted to x24s8 fine.

	v2: fold fixes from Marek in:
	a) put S8 last in the list
	b) fix renderable to always test for d/s renderable
	fixup the texture case to use a stencil only format
	for picking the format for the texture view.
	v3: hit fallback for getteximage
	v4: put s8 back in front, it shouldn't get picked now (Ilia)
	</pre>
	<li>If someone tested your patch, document it with a line like this:
	<pre>
	Tested-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
	</pre>
	<li>If the patch was reviewed (usually the case) or acked by someone,
	that should be documented with:
	<pre>
	Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
	Acked-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
	</pre>
	<li>If sending later revision of a patch, add all the tags - ack, r-b,
	Cc: mesa-stable and/or other. This provides reviewers with quick feedback if the
	patch has already been reviewed.
	<li>In order for your patch to reach the prospective reviewer easier/faster,
	use the script scripts/get_reviewer.pl to get a list of individuals and include
	them in the CC list.
	<br>
	Please use common sense and do <strong>not</strong> blindly add everyone.
	<br>
	<pre>
	$ scripts/get_reviewer.pl --help # to get the help screen
	$ scripts/get_reviewer.pl -f src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_android.c
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> (reviewer:ANDROID EGL SUPPORT,added_lines:188/700=27%,removed_lines:58/283=20%)
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org> (reviewer:ANDROID EGL SUPPORT,authored:12/41=29%,added_lines:308/700=44%,removed_lines:115/283=41%)
	Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> (authored:13/41=32%,removed_lines:76/283=27%)
	</pre>
	</ul>



	<h2 id="testing">Testing Patches</h2>

	<p>
	It should go without saying that patches must be tested. In general,
	do whatever testing is prudent.
	</p>

	<p>
	You should always run the Mesa test suite before submitting patches.
	The test suite can be run using the 'make check' command. All tests
	must pass before patches will be accepted, this may mean you have
	to update the tests themselves.
	</p>

	<p>
	Whenever possible and applicable, test the patch with
	<a href="https://piglit.freedesktop.org">Piglit</a> and/or
	<a href="https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/deqp/">dEQP</a>
	to check for regressions.
	</p>

	<p>
	As mentioned at the begining, patches should be bisectable.
	A good way to test this is to make use of the `git rebase` command,
	to run your tests on each commit. Assuming your branch is based off
	<code>origin/master</code>, you can run:
	<pre>
	$ git rebase --interactive --exec "make check" origin/master
	</pre>
	replacing <code>"make check"</code> with whatever other test you want to
	run.
	</p>


	<h2 id="mailing">Mailing Patches</h2>

	<p>
	Patches should be sent to the mesa-dev mailing list for review:
	<a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev">
	mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org</a>.
	When submitting a patch make sure to use
	<a href="https://git-scm.com/docs/git-send-email">git send-email</a>
	rather than attaching patches to emails. Sending patches as
	attachments prevents people from being able to provide in-line review
	comments.
	</p>

	<p>
	When submitting follow-up patches you can use --in-reply-to to make v2, v3,
	etc patches show up as replies to the originals. This usually works well
	when you're sending out updates to individual patches (as opposed to
	re-sending the whole series). Using --in-reply-to makes
	it harder for reviewers to accidentally review old patches.
	</p>

	<p>
	When submitting follow-up patches you should also login to
	<a href="https://patchwork.freedesktop.org">patchwork</a> and change the
	state of your old patches to Superseded.
	</p>

	<p>
	Some companies' mail server automatically append a legal disclaimer,
	usually containing something along the lines of "The information in this
	email is confidential" and "distribution is strictly prohibited".<br/>
	These legal notices prevent us from being able to accept your patch,
	rendering the whole process pointless. Please make sure these are
	disabled before sending your patches. (Note that you may need to contact
	your email administrator for this.)
	</p>

	<h2 id="reviewing">Reviewing Patches</h2>

	<p>
	When you've reviewed a patch on the mailing list, please be unambiguous
	about your review. That is, state either
	</p>
	<pre>
	Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
	</pre>
	or
	<pre>
	Acked-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
	</pre>
	<p>
	Rather than saying just "LGTM" or "Seems OK".
	</p>

	<p>
	If small changes are suggested, it's OK to say something like:
	</p>
	<pre>
	With the above fixes, Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
	</pre>
	<p>
	which tells the patch author that the patch can be committed, as long
	as the issues are resolved first.
	</p>


	<h2 id="nominations">Nominating a commit for a stable branch</h2>

	<p>
	There are three ways to nominate a patch for inclusion in the stable branch and
	release.
	</p>
	<ul>
	<li> By adding the Cc: mesa-stable@ tag as described below.
	<li> Sending the commit ID (as seen in master branch) to the mesa-stable@ mailing list.
	<li> Forwarding the patch from the mesa-dev@ mailing list.
	</li>
	</ul>
	<p>
	Note: resending patch identical to one on mesa-dev@ or one that differs only
	by the extra mesa-stable@ tag is <strong>not</strong> recommended.
	</p>


	<h3 id="thetag">The stable tag</h3>

	<p>
	If you want a commit to be applied to a stable branch,
	you should add an appropriate note to the commit message.
	</p>

	<p>
	Here are some examples of such a note:
	</p>
	<ul>
	<li>CC: <mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org></li>
	</ul>

	Simply adding the CC to the mesa-stable list address is adequate to nominate
	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 negative effect on the patch nomination.

	<p>
	Note: by removing the tag [as the commit is pushed] the patch is
	<strong>explicitly</strong> rejected from inclusion in the stable branch(es).
	<br>
	Thus, drop the line <strong>only</strong> if you want to cancel the nomination.
	</p>

	Alternatively, if one uses the "Fixes" tag as described in the "Patch formatting"
	section, it nominates a commit for all active stable branches that include the
	commit that is referred to.

	<h2 id="criteria">Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch</h2>

	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 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.

	<ul>
	<li>Patch must conform with the <a href="#guidelines">Basic guidelines</a></li>

	<li>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.</li>

	<li>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.</li>

	<li>Patch cannot be larger than 100 lines.</li>

	<li>Patches that move code around with no functional change should be
	rejected.</li>

	<li>Patch must be a bug fix and not a new feature.

	Note: An exception to this rule, are hardware-enabling "features". For
	example, <a href="#backports">backports</a> 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.</li>

	<li>Patch must be reviewed, For example, the commit message has Reviewed-by,
	Signed-off-by, or Tested-by tags from someone but the author.</li>

	<li>Performance patches are considered only if they provide information
	about the hardware, program in question and observed improvement. Use numbers
	to represent your measurements.</li>
	</ul>

	If the patch complies with the rules it will be
	<a href="releasing.html#pickntest">cherry-picked</a>. 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
	<a href="releasing.html#prerelease">pre-release</a> 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
	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.

	<h2 id="backports">Sending backports for the stable branch</h2>
	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
	<code>Conflicts</code> section. Summary of which will be provided in the
	<a href="releasing.html#prerelease">pre-release</a> announcement.
	<br>
	Developers are interested in sending backports are recommended to use either a
	<code>[BACKPORT #branch]</code> subject prefix or provides similar information
	within the commit summary.

	<h2 id="gittips">Git tips</h2>

	<ul>
	<li><code>git rebase -i ...</code> is your friend. Don't be afraid to use it.
	<li>Apply a fixup to commit FOO.
	<pre>
	git add ...
	git commit --fixup=FOO
	git rebase -i --autosquash ...
	</pre>
	<li>Test for build breakage between patches e.g last 8 commits.
	<pre>
	git rebase -i --exec="make -j4" HEAD~8
	</pre>
	<li>Sets the default mailing address for your repo.
	<pre>
	git config --local sendemail.to mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
	</pre>
	<li> Add version to subject line of patch series in this case for the last 8
	commits before sending.
	<pre>
	git send-email --subject-prefix="PATCH v4" HEAD~8
	git send-email -v4 @~8 # shorter version, inherited from git format-patch
	</pre>
	<li> Configure git to use the get_reviewer.pl script interactively. Thus you
	can avoid adding the world to the CC list.
	<pre>
	git config sendemail.cccmd "./scripts/get_reviewer.pl -i"
	</pre>
	</ul>


	</div>
	</body>
	</html>