Email patches to [email protected] are preferred, but we accept PRs on GitHub as well. Patches sent via email may include a bolt11 lightning invoice, choosing the price you think the patch is worth, and we will pay it once the patch is accepted and if I think the price isn't unreasonable. You can also send an any-amount invoice and I will pay what I think it's worth if you prefer not to choose. You can include the bolt11 in the commit body or email so that it can be paid once it is applied.
Recommended settings when submitting code via email:
$ git config sendemail.to "[email protected]"
$ git config format.subjectPrefix "PATCH damus"
$ git config format.signOff yes
You can subscribe to the patches mailing list to help review code.
Most of this comes from the linux kernel guidelines for submitting patches, we follow many of the same guidelines. These are very important! If you want your code to be accepted, please read this carefully
Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or 5000 lines of a new feature, there must be an underlying problem that motivated you to do this work. Convince the reviewer that there is a problem worth fixing and that it makes sense for them to read past the first paragraph.
Once the problem is established, describe what you are actually doing about it in technical detail. It's important to describe the change in plain English for the reviewer to verify that the code is behaving as you intend it to.
The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a form which can be easily pulled into Damus's source code tree.
Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get
long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch. See
the dedicated Separate your changes section because this is very
important.
When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the complete patch description and justification for it. Each new version should use the -v2,v3,vN option on git-send-email for each new patch revision. Don't just say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the reviewer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch. I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained. This benefits both the maintainers and reviewers. Some reviewers probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz" instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change its behaviour.
If your patch fixes a bug, use the 'Closes:' tag with a URL referencing the report in the mailing list archives or a public bug tracker. For example:
Closes: https://github.com/damus-io/damus/issues/1234
Some bug trackers have the ability to close issues automatically when a commit with such a tag is applied. Some bots monitoring mailing lists can also track such tags and take certain actions. Private bug trackers and invalid URLs are forbidden.
If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
git bisect, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of
the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary. Do not split the tag across multiple
lines, tags are exempt from the "wrap at 75 columns" rule in order to simplify
parsing scripts. For example::
Fixes: 54a4f0239f2e ("Fix crash in navigation")
The following git config settings can be used to add a pretty format for
outputting the above style in the git log or git show commands::
[core]
abbrev = 12
[pretty]
fixes = Fixes: %h (\"%s\")
An example call::
$ git log -1 --pretty=fixes 54a4f0239f2e
Fixes: 54a4f0239f2e ("Fix crash in navigation")
Separate each logical change into a separate patch.
For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance enhancements for a particular feature, separate those changes into two or more patches. If your changes include an API update, and a new feature 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 Damus 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.
Include patch changelogs which describe what has changed between the v1 and
v2 version of the patch. Please put this information after the --- line
which separates the changelog from the rest of the patch. The version
information is not part of the changelog which gets committed to the git tree.
It is additional information for the reviewers. If it's placed above the commit
tags, it needs manual interaction to remove it. If it is below the separator
line, it gets automatically stripped off when applying the patch::
<commit message>
...
Signed-off-by: Author <author@mail>
---
V2 -> V3: Removed redundant helper function
V1 -> V2: Cleaned up coding style and addressed review comments
path/to/file | 5+++--
...
You should always copy the appropriate people on any patch to code that they may have been involved with. You can use git-contacts to find people who have touched the code previously:
$ git format-patch --cover-letter -o patches origin/master..my-feature
$ git send-email --dry-run --cc-cmd=git-contacts patches/*
[email protected] should be used by default for all patches.
William Casarin is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the Damus. His email address is [email protected].
If you have a patch that fixes an exploitable security bug, send that patch to [email protected]. For severe bugs, a short embargo may be considered to allow distributors to get the patch out to users; in such cases, obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists.
Will and other Damus developers need to be able to read and comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for a Damus developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code.
For this reason, all patches should be submitted by e-mail "inline". The
easiest way to do this is with git send-email, which is strongly
recommended. An interactive tutorial for git send-email is available at
git-send-email
Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in which the patch can be improved, in the form of a reply to your email. You must respond to those comments; ignoring reviewers is a good way to get ignored in return. You can simply reply to their emails to answer their comments. Review comments or questions that do not lead to a code change should almost certainly bring about a comment or changelog entry so that the next reviewer better understands what is going on.
Be sure to tell the reviewers what changes you are making and to thank them
for their time. Code review is a tiring and time-consuming process, and
reviewers sometimes get grumpy. Even in that case, though, respond
politely and address the problems they have pointed out. When sending a next
version, add a patch changelog to the cover letter or to individual patches
explaining difference against previous submission (see The canonical patch format)
Top-posting is strongly discouraged in Damus development discussions. Interleaved (or "inline") replies make conversations much easier to follow. For more details see: Posting style
As is frequently quoted on the mailing list:
A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Similarly, please trim all unneeded quotations that aren't relevant to your reply. This makes responses easier to find, and saves time and space. For more details see: http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top
A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on patches that are being emailed around.
The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify the below:
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.
then you just add a line saying:
Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <[email protected]>
This will be done for you automatically if you use git commit -s.
Reverts should also include "Signed-off-by". git revert -s does that
for you.
Any further SoBs (Signed-off-by:'s) following the author's SoB are from people handling and transporting the patch, but were not involved in its development. SoB chains should reflect the real route a patch took as it was propagated to the maintainers and ultimately to Will, with the first SoB entry signalling primary authorship of a single author.
If you have a user facing change that you would like to include in Damus changelogs, please include:
- Changelog-Changed: Changed the heart button to a shaka
- Changelog-Fixed: Fixed notes not appearing on profile
- Changelog-Added: Added a cool new feature
- Changelog-Removed: Removed zaps
The changelog script will pick these up and give you attribution for your change
The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me" into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an explicit ack).
Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here. When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing list archives.
If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
provided such comments, you may optionally add a Cc: tag to the patch.
This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
have been included in the discussion.
Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers; it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch.
The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future. The tag is intended for bugs; please do not use it to credit feature requests. The tag should be followed by a Closes: tag pointing to the report, unless the report is not available on the web. The Link: tag can be used instead of Closes: if the patch fixes a part of the issue(s) being reported. Please note that if the bug was reported in private, then ask for permission first before using the Reported-by tag.
A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an appropriate modification of Damus and related libraies without any remaining serious technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally increase the likelihood of your patch getting into Damus.
Both Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags, once received on mailing list from tester or reviewer, should be added by author to the applicable patches when sending next versions. However if the patch has changed substantially in following version, these tags might not be applicable anymore and thus should be removed. Usually removal of someone's Tested-by or Reviewed-by tags should be mentioned in the patch changelog (after the '---' separator).
A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the idea was not posted in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit our idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the future.
It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch
(e.g., when using git send-email) to associate the patch with
previous relevant discussion, e.g. to link a bug fix to the email with
the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
best to avoid using In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the
series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an
unmanageable forest of references in email clients.
When other developers receive your patches and start the review process, it is often useful for them to know where in the tree history they should place your work. This is particularly useful for automated CI processes that attempt to run a series of tests in order to establish the quality of your submission before the maintainer starts the review.
If you are using git format-patch to generate your patches, you can
automatically include the base tree information in your submission by
using the --base flag. The easiest and most convenient way to use
this option is with topical branches:
$ git checkout -t -b my-topical-branch master
Branch 'my-topical-branch' set up to track local branch 'master'.
Switched to a new branch 'my-topical-branch'
[perform your edits and commits]
$ git format-patch --base=auto --cover-letter -o outgoing/ master
outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch
outgoing/0001-First-Commit.patch
outgoing/...
When you open outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch for editing, you will
notice that it will have the base-commit: trailer at the very
bottom, which provides the reviewer and the CI tools enough information
to properly perform git am without worrying about conflicts::
$ git checkout -b patch-review [base-commit-id]
Switched to a new branch 'patch-review'
$ git am patches.mbox
Applying: First Commit
Applying: ...
Please see man git-format-patch for more information about this
option.