784 lines
28 KiB
ReStructuredText
784 lines
28 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
|
|
.. _OfflineIMAP: http://offlineimap.org
|
|
.. _commits mailing list: http://lists.offlineimap.org/listinfo.cgi/commits-offlineimap.org
|
|
.. _mailing list: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/offlineimap-project
|
|
|
|
Hacking OfflineIMAP
|
|
===================
|
|
|
|
In this section you'll find all the information you need to start
|
|
hacking `OfflineIMAP`_. Be aware there are a lot of very usefull tips
|
|
in the mailing list. You may want to subscribe if you didn't,
|
|
yet. This is where you will get help.
|
|
|
|
.. contents:: :depth: 2
|
|
|
|
API
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
:ref:`OfflineImap's API <API docs>` documentation is included in the user
|
|
documentation (next section) and online browsable at
|
|
`<http://docs.offlineimap.org>`_. It is mostly auto-generated from the
|
|
source code and is a work in progress. Contributions in this area
|
|
would be very appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Following new commits
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
You can follow upstream commits on
|
|
- `CIA.vc <http://cia.vc/stats/project/offlineimap>`,
|
|
- `Ohloh <http://www.ohloh.net/p/offlineimap>`,
|
|
- `GitHub <https://github.com/spaetz/offlineimap/commits/>`,
|
|
- or on the `commits mailing list`_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Git: OfflineImap's branching Model And Workflow
|
|
===============================================
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
This optional section provides you with information on how we use git
|
|
branches and do releases. You will need to know very little about git
|
|
to get started.
|
|
|
|
For the impatient, see the :ref:`contribution checklist` below.
|
|
|
|
Git Branching model
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
OfflineIMAP uses the following branches:
|
|
|
|
* master
|
|
* next
|
|
* maint
|
|
* (pu)
|
|
* & several topic oriented feature branches. A topic may consist of
|
|
one or more patches.
|
|
|
|
master
|
|
++++++
|
|
|
|
If you're not sure what branch you should use, this one is for you.
|
|
This is the mainline. Simple users should use this branch to follow
|
|
OfflineIMAP's evolution.
|
|
|
|
Usually, patches submitted to the mailing list should start off of
|
|
this branch.
|
|
|
|
next
|
|
++++
|
|
|
|
Patches recently merged are good candidates for this branch. The content of next
|
|
is merged into the mainline (master) at release time for both stable and -rc
|
|
releases.
|
|
|
|
When patches are sent to the mailing list, contributors discuss about them. Once
|
|
done and when patches looks ready for mainline, patches are first merged into
|
|
next. Advanced users and testers use this branch to test last merged patches
|
|
before they hit the mainline. This helps not introducing strong breackages
|
|
directly in master.
|
|
|
|
pu
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
pu stands for "proposed updates". If a topic is not ready for master nor next,
|
|
it may be merged into pu. This branch only help developers to work on someone
|
|
else topic or an earlier pending topic.
|
|
|
|
This branch is **not intended to be checkouted**; never. Even developers don't
|
|
do that. Due to the way pu is built you can't expect content there to work in
|
|
any way... unless you clearly want to run into troubles.
|
|
|
|
Developers can extract a topic from this branch to work on it. See the following
|
|
section "Extract a topic from pu" in this documentation.
|
|
|
|
maint
|
|
+++++
|
|
|
|
This is the maintenance branch. It gets its own releases starting from an old
|
|
stable release. It helps both users having troubles with last stable releases
|
|
and users not wanting latest features or so to still benefit from strong bug
|
|
fixes and security fixes.
|
|
|
|
Release cycles
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
A typical release cycle works like this:
|
|
|
|
1. A stable release is out.
|
|
|
|
2. Feature topics are sent, discussed and merged.
|
|
|
|
3. When enough work was merged, we start the freeze cycle: the first release
|
|
candidate is out.
|
|
|
|
4. During the freeze cycle, no more features are merged. It's time to test
|
|
OfflineIMAP. New candidates version are released. The more we are late in -rc
|
|
releases the less patches are merged but bug fixes.
|
|
|
|
5. When we think a release is stable enough, we restart from step 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. _contribution checklist:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contribution Checklist (and a short version for the impatient)
|
|
===============================================================
|
|
|
|
Create commits
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
* make commits of logical units
|
|
* check for unnecessary whitespace with ``git diff --check``
|
|
before committing
|
|
* do not check in commented out code or unneeded files
|
|
* the first line of the commit message should be a short
|
|
description (50 characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION
|
|
in git-commit(1)), and should skip the full stop
|
|
* the body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:
|
|
* uses the imperative, present tense: **change**,
|
|
not **changed** or **changes**.
|
|
* includes motivation for the change, and contrasts
|
|
its implementation with previous behaviour
|
|
* add a ``Signed-off-by: Your Name <you@example.com>`` line to the
|
|
commit message (or just use the option `-s` when committing)
|
|
to confirm that you agree to the **Developer's Certificate of Origin**
|
|
* make sure that you have tests for the bug you are fixing
|
|
* make sure that the test suite passes after your commit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Export commits as patches
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
|
|
* use ``git format-patch -M`` to create the patch
|
|
* do not PGP sign your patch
|
|
* do not attach your patch, but read in the mail
|
|
body, unless you cannot teach your mailer to
|
|
leave the formatting of the patch alone.
|
|
* be careful doing cut & paste into your mailer, not to
|
|
corrupt whitespaces.
|
|
* provide additional information (which is unsuitable for
|
|
the commit message) between the ``---`` and the diffstat
|
|
* if you change, add, or remove a command line option or
|
|
make some other user interface change, the associated
|
|
documentation should be updated as well.
|
|
* if your name is not writable in ASCII, make sure that
|
|
you send off a message in the correct encoding.
|
|
* send the patch to the `mailing list`_ and the
|
|
maintainer (nicolas.s-dev@laposte.net) if (and only if)
|
|
the patch is ready for inclusion. If you use `git-send-email(1)`,
|
|
please test it first by sending email to yourself.
|
|
* see below for instructions specific to your mailer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long version
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
I started reading over the SubmittingPatches document for Git, primarily because
|
|
I wanted to have a document similar to it for OfflineIMAP to make sure people
|
|
understand what they are doing when they write `Signed-off-by` line.
|
|
|
|
But the patch submission requirements are a lot more relaxed here on the
|
|
technical/contents front, because the OfflineIMAP is a lot smaller ;-). So here
|
|
is only the relevant bits.
|
|
|
|
Decide what branch to base your work on
|
|
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
|
|
|
In general, always base your work on the oldest branch that your
|
|
change is relevant to.
|
|
|
|
* A bugfix should be based on 'maint' in general. If the bug is not
|
|
present in 'maint', base it on 'master'. For a bug that's not yet
|
|
in 'master', find the topic that introduces the regression, and
|
|
base your work on the tip of the topic.
|
|
* A new feature should be based on 'master' in general. If the new
|
|
feature depends on a topic that is in 'pu', but not in 'master',
|
|
base your work on the tip of that topic.
|
|
* Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in 'master' should
|
|
be based on the tip of that topic. If the topic has not been merged
|
|
to 'next', it's alright to add a note to squash minor corrections
|
|
into the series.
|
|
* In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics
|
|
not in 'master', start working on 'next' or 'pu' privately and send
|
|
out patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to
|
|
wait until some of the dependent topics graduate to 'master', and
|
|
rebase your work.
|
|
|
|
To find the tip of a topic branch, run ``git log --first-parent
|
|
master..pu`` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this
|
|
commit is the tip of the topic branch.
|
|
|
|
Make separate commits for logically separate changes
|
|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
|
|
|
Unless your patch is really trivial, you should not be sending your
|
|
changes in a single patch. Instead, always make a commit with
|
|
complete commit message and generate a series of small patches from
|
|
your repository.
|
|
|
|
Describe the technical detail of the change(s).
|
|
|
|
If your description starts to get too long, that's a sign that you
|
|
probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces.
|
|
That being said, patches which plainly describe the things that
|
|
help reviewers check the patch, and future maintainers understand
|
|
the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarise
|
|
the point in the subject well, and describe the motivation for the
|
|
change, the approach taken by the change, and if relevant how this
|
|
differs substantially from the prior version, can be found on Usenet
|
|
archives back into the late 80's. Consider it like good Netiquette,
|
|
but for code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generate your patch using git tools out of your commits
|
|
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
|
|
|
git based diff tools (git, Cogito, and StGIT included) generate
|
|
unidiff which is the preferred format.
|
|
|
|
You do not have to be afraid to use -M option to ``git diff`` or
|
|
``git format-patch``, if your patch involves file renames. The
|
|
receiving end can handle them just fine.
|
|
|
|
Please make sure your patch does not include any extra files
|
|
which do not belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review
|
|
your patch after generating it, to ensure accuracy. Before
|
|
sending out, please make sure it cleanly applies to the "master"
|
|
branch head. If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch,
|
|
that is fine, but please mark it as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sending your patches
|
|
++++++++++++++++++++
|
|
|
|
People on the mailing list need to be able to read and
|
|
comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for
|
|
a 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
|
|
"inline". WARNING: Be wary of your MUAs word-wrap
|
|
corrupting your patch. Do not cut-n-paste your patch; you can
|
|
lose tabs that way if you are not careful.
|
|
|
|
It is a common convention to prefix your subject line with
|
|
[PATCH]. This lets people easily distinguish patches from other
|
|
e-mail discussions. Use of additional markers after PATCH and
|
|
the closing bracket to mark the nature of the patch is also
|
|
encouraged. E.g. [PATCH/RFC] is often used when the patch is
|
|
not ready to be applied but it is for discussion, [PATCH v2],
|
|
[PATCH v3] etc. are often seen when you are sending an update to
|
|
what you have previously sent.
|
|
|
|
``git format-patch`` command follows the best current practice to
|
|
format the body of an e-mail message. At the beginning of the
|
|
patch should come your commit message, ending with the
|
|
Signed-off-by: lines, and a line that consists of three dashes,
|
|
followed by the diffstat information and the patch itself. If
|
|
you are forwarding a patch from somebody else, optionally, at
|
|
the beginning of the e-mail message just before the commit
|
|
message starts, you can put a "From: " line to name that person.
|
|
|
|
You often want to add additional explanation about the patch,
|
|
other than the commit message itself. Place such "cover letter"
|
|
material between the three dash lines and the diffstat.
|
|
|
|
Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
|
|
Do not let your e-mail client send quoted-printable. Do not let
|
|
your e-mail client send format=flowed which would destroy
|
|
whitespaces in your patches. Many
|
|
popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME
|
|
attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on
|
|
your code. A MIME attachment also takes a bit more time to
|
|
process. This does not decrease the likelihood of your
|
|
MIME-attached change being accepted, but it makes it more likely
|
|
that it will be postponed.
|
|
|
|
Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
|
|
you to re-send them using MIME, that is OK.
|
|
|
|
Do not PGP sign your patch, at least for now. Most likely, your
|
|
maintainer or other people on the list would not have your PGP
|
|
key and would not bother obtaining it anyway. Your patch is not
|
|
judged by who you are; a good patch from an unknown origin has a
|
|
far better chance of being accepted than a patch from a known,
|
|
respected origin that is done poorly or does incorrect things.
|
|
|
|
If you really really really really want to do a PGP signed
|
|
patch, format it as "multipart/signed", not a text/plain message
|
|
that starts with '-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----'. That is
|
|
not a text/plain, it's something else.
|
|
|
|
Unless your patch is a very trivial and an obviously correct one,
|
|
first send it with "To:" set to the mailing list, with "cc:" listing
|
|
people who are involved in the area you are touching (the output from
|
|
"git blame $path" and "git shortlog --no-merges $path" would help to
|
|
identify them), to solicit comments and reviews. After the list
|
|
reached a consensus that it is a good idea to apply the patch, re-send
|
|
it with "To:" set to the maintainer and optionally "cc:" the list for
|
|
inclusion. Do not forget to add trailers such as "Acked-by:",
|
|
"Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by:" after your "Signed-off-by:" line as
|
|
necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign your work
|
|
++++++++++++++
|
|
|
|
To improve tracking of who did what, we've borrowed the
|
|
"sign-off" procedure from the Linux kernel project on patches
|
|
that are being emailed around. Although OfflineIMAP is a lot
|
|
smaller project it is a good discipline to follow it.
|
|
|
|
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 a 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 <random@developer.example.org>
|
|
|
|
This line can be automatically added by git if you run the git-commit
|
|
command with the -s option.
|
|
|
|
Notice that you can place your own Signed-off-by: line when
|
|
forwarding somebody else's patch with the above rules for
|
|
D-C-O. Indeed you are encouraged to do so. Do not forget to
|
|
place an in-body "From: " line at the beginning to properly attribute
|
|
the change to its true author (see above).
|
|
|
|
Also notice that a real name is used in the Signed-off-by: line. Please
|
|
don't hide your real name.
|
|
|
|
If you like, you can put extra tags at the end:
|
|
|
|
* "Reported-by:" is used to to credit someone who found the bug that
|
|
the patch attempts to fix.
|
|
* "Acked-by:" says that the person who is more familiar with the area
|
|
the patch attempts to modify liked the patch.
|
|
* "Reviewed-by:", unlike the other tags, can only be offered by the
|
|
reviewer and means that she is completely satisfied that the patch
|
|
is ready for application. It is usually offered only after a
|
|
detailed review.
|
|
* "Tested-by:" is used to indicate that the person applied the patch
|
|
and found it to have the desired effect.
|
|
|
|
You can also create your own tag or use one that's in common usage
|
|
such as "Thanks-to:", "Based-on-patch-by:", or "Mentored-by:".
|
|
|
|
An ideal patch flow
|
|
===================
|
|
|
|
Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
|
|
suggests to the contributors:
|
|
|
|
(0) You come up with an itch. You code it up.
|
|
|
|
(1) Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about
|
|
the change.
|
|
|
|
The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you
|
|
are butchering. These people happen to be the ones who are
|
|
most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
|
|
they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help,
|
|
don't demand). ``git log -p -- $area_you_are_modifying`` would
|
|
help you find out who they are.
|
|
|
|
(2) You get comments and suggestions for improvements. You may
|
|
even get them in a "on top of your change" patch form.
|
|
|
|
(3) Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
|
|
spend their time to improve your patch. Go back to step (2).
|
|
|
|
(4) The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
|
|
good. Send it to the list and cc the maintainer.
|
|
|
|
(5) A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to 'next',
|
|
and cooked further and eventually graduates to 'master'.
|
|
|
|
In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
|
|
from the list and queue it to 'pu', in order to make it easier for
|
|
people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
|
|
their trees themselves.
|
|
|
|
Know the status of your patch after submission
|
|
----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in
|
|
master. ``git pull --rebase`` will automatically skip already-applied
|
|
patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
|
|
of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
|
|
tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of
|
|
master).
|
|
|
|
.. * Read the git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
|
|
entitled "What's cooking in git.git" and "What's in git.git" giving
|
|
the status of various proposed changes.
|
|
|
|
MUA specific hints
|
|
==================
|
|
|
|
Some of patches I receive or pick up from the list share common
|
|
patterns of breakage. Please make sure your MUA is set up
|
|
properly not to corrupt whitespaces. Here are two common ones
|
|
I have seen:
|
|
|
|
* Empty context lines that do not have _any_ whitespace.
|
|
|
|
* Non empty context lines that have one extra whitespace at the
|
|
beginning.
|
|
|
|
One test you could do yourself if your MUA is set up correctly is:
|
|
|
|
* Send the patch to yourself, exactly the way you would, except
|
|
To: and Cc: lines, which would not contain the list and
|
|
maintainer address.
|
|
|
|
* Save that patch to a file in UNIX mailbox format. Call it say
|
|
a.patch.
|
|
|
|
* Try to apply to the tip of the "master" branch from the
|
|
git.git public repository::
|
|
|
|
$ git fetch http://kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master:test-apply
|
|
$ git checkout test-apply
|
|
$ git reset --hard
|
|
$ git am a.patch
|
|
|
|
If it does not apply correctly, there can be various reasons.
|
|
|
|
* Your patch itself does not apply cleanly. That is _bad_ but
|
|
does not have much to do with your MUA. Please rebase the
|
|
patch appropriately.
|
|
|
|
* Your MUA corrupted your patch; "am" would complain that
|
|
the patch does not apply. Look at .git/rebase-apply/ subdirectory and
|
|
see what 'patch' file contains and check for the common
|
|
corruption patterns mentioned above.
|
|
|
|
* While you are at it, check what are in 'info' and
|
|
'final-commit' files as well. If what is in 'final-commit' is
|
|
not exactly what you would want to see in the commit log
|
|
message, it is very likely that your maintainer would end up
|
|
hand editing the log message when he applies your patch.
|
|
Things like "Hi, this is my first patch.\n", if you really
|
|
want to put in the patch e-mail, should come after the
|
|
three-dash line that signals the end of the commit message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pine
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
(Johannes Schindelin)
|
|
I don't know how many people still use pine, but for those poor souls it may
|
|
be good to mention that the quell-flowed-text is needed for recent versions.
|
|
|
|
... the "no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, too. AFAIK it was introduced
|
|
in 4.60.
|
|
|
|
(Linus Torvalds)
|
|
And 4.58 needs at least this
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
diff-tree 8326dd8350be64ac7fc805f6563a1d61ad10d32c (from e886a61f76edf5410573e92e38ce22974f9c40f1)
|
|
Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org>
|
|
Date: Mon Aug 15 17:23:51 2005 -0700
|
|
|
|
Fix pine whitespace-corruption bug
|
|
|
|
There's no excuse for unconditionally removing whitespace from
|
|
the pico buffers on close.
|
|
|
|
diff --git a/pico/pico.c b/pico/pico.c
|
|
--- a/pico/pico.c
|
|
+++ b/pico/pico.c
|
|
@@ -219,7 +219,9 @@ PICO *pm;
|
|
switch(pico_all_done){ /* prepare for/handle final events */
|
|
case COMP_EXIT : /* already confirmed */
|
|
packheader();
|
|
+#if 0
|
|
stripwhitespace();
|
|
+#endif
|
|
c |= COMP_EXIT;
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
(Daniel Barkalow)
|
|
> A patch to SubmittingPatches, MUA specific help section for
|
|
> users of Pine 4.63 would be very much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Ah, it looks like a recent version changed the default behavior to do the
|
|
right thing, and inverted the sense of the configuration option. (Either
|
|
that or Gentoo did it.) So you need to set the
|
|
"no-strip-whitespace-before-send" option, unless the option you have is
|
|
"strip-whitespace-before-send", in which case you should avoid checking
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thunderbird
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
(A Large Angry SCM)
|
|
By default, Thunderbird will both wrap emails as well as flag them as
|
|
being 'format=flowed', both of which will make the resulting email unusable
|
|
by git.
|
|
|
|
Here are some hints on how to successfully submit patches inline using
|
|
Thunderbird.
|
|
|
|
There are two different approaches. One approach is to configure
|
|
Thunderbird to not mangle patches. The second approach is to use
|
|
an external editor to keep Thunderbird from mangling the patches.
|
|
|
|
**Approach #1 (configuration):**
|
|
|
|
This recipe is current as of Thunderbird 2.0.0.19. Three steps:
|
|
|
|
1. Configure your mail server composition as plain text
|
|
Edit...Account Settings...Composition & Addressing,
|
|
uncheck 'Compose Messages in HTML'.
|
|
2. Configure your general composition window to not wrap
|
|
Edit..Preferences..Composition, wrap plain text messages at 0
|
|
3. Disable the use of format=flowed
|
|
Edit..Preferences..Advanced..Config Editor. Search for:
|
|
mailnews.send_plaintext_flowed
|
|
toggle it to make sure it is set to 'false'.
|
|
|
|
After that is done, you should be able to compose email as you
|
|
otherwise would (cut + paste, git-format-patch | git-imap-send, etc),
|
|
and the patches should not be mangled.
|
|
|
|
**Approach #2 (external editor):**
|
|
|
|
This recipe appears to work with the current [*1*] Thunderbird from Suse.
|
|
|
|
The following Thunderbird extensions are needed:
|
|
AboutConfig 0.5
|
|
http://aboutconfig.mozdev.org/
|
|
External Editor 0.7.2
|
|
http://globs.org/articles.php?lng=en&pg=8
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) Prepare the patch as a text file using your method of choice.
|
|
|
|
2) Before opening a compose window, use Edit->Account Settings to
|
|
uncheck the "Compose messages in HTML format" setting in the
|
|
"Composition & Addressing" panel of the account to be used to send the
|
|
patch. [*2*]
|
|
|
|
3) In the main Thunderbird window, _before_ you open the compose window
|
|
for the patch, use Tools->about:config to set the following to the
|
|
indicated values::
|
|
|
|
mailnews.send_plaintext_flowed => false
|
|
mailnews.wraplength => 0
|
|
|
|
4) Open a compose window and click the external editor icon.
|
|
|
|
5) In the external editor window, read in the patch file and exit the
|
|
editor normally.
|
|
|
|
6) Back in the compose window: Add whatever other text you wish to the
|
|
message, complete the addressing and subject fields, and press send.
|
|
|
|
7) Optionally, undo the about:config/account settings changes made in
|
|
steps 2 & 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Footnotes]
|
|
|
|
*1* Version 1.0 (20041207) from the MozillaThunderbird-1.0-5 rpm of Suse
|
|
9.3 professional updates.
|
|
|
|
*2* It may be possible to do this with about:config and the following
|
|
settings but I haven't tried, yet::
|
|
|
|
mail.html_compose => false
|
|
mail.identity.default.compose_html => false
|
|
mail.identity.id?.compose_html => false
|
|
|
|
(Lukas Sandström)
|
|
There is a script in contrib/thunderbird-patch-inline which can help you
|
|
include patches with Thunderbird in an easy way. To use it, do the steps above
|
|
and then use the script as the external editor.
|
|
|
|
Gnus
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
'|' in the *Summary* buffer can be used to pipe the current
|
|
message to an external program, and this is a handy way to drive
|
|
"git am". However, if the message is MIME encoded, what is
|
|
piped into the program is the representation you see in your
|
|
*Article* buffer after unwrapping MIME. This is often not what
|
|
you would want for two reasons. It tends to screw up non ASCII
|
|
characters (most notably in people's names), and also
|
|
whitespaces (fatal in patches). Running 'C-u g' to display the
|
|
message in raw form before using '|' to run the pipe can work
|
|
this problem around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
KMail
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
This should help you to submit patches inline using KMail.
|
|
|
|
1) Prepare the patch as a text file.
|
|
|
|
2) Click on New Mail.
|
|
|
|
3) Go under "Options" in the Composer window and be sure that
|
|
"Word wrap" is not set.
|
|
|
|
4) Use Message -> Insert file... and insert the patch.
|
|
|
|
5) Back in the compose window: add whatever other text you wish to the
|
|
message, complete the addressing and subject fields, and press send.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gmail
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
GMail does not appear to have any way to turn off line wrapping in the web
|
|
interface, so this will mangle any emails that you send. You can however
|
|
use "git send-email" and send your patches through the GMail SMTP server, or
|
|
use any IMAP email client to connect to the google IMAP server and forward
|
|
the emails through that.
|
|
|
|
To use ``git send-email`` and send your patches through the GMail SMTP server,
|
|
edit `~/.gitconfig` to specify your account settings::
|
|
|
|
[sendemail]
|
|
smtpencryption = tls
|
|
smtpserver = smtp.gmail.com
|
|
smtpuser = user@gmail.com
|
|
smtppass = p4ssw0rd
|
|
smtpserverport = 587
|
|
|
|
Once your commits are ready to be sent to the mailing list, run the
|
|
following commands::
|
|
|
|
$ git format-patch --cover-letter -M origin/master -o outgoing/
|
|
$ edit outgoing/0000-*
|
|
$ git send-email outgoing/*
|
|
|
|
To submit using the IMAP interface, first, edit your `~/.gitconfig` to specify your
|
|
account settings::
|
|
|
|
[imap]
|
|
folder = "[Gmail]/Drafts"
|
|
host = imaps://imap.gmail.com
|
|
user = user@gmail.com
|
|
pass = p4ssw0rd
|
|
port = 993
|
|
sslverify = false
|
|
|
|
You might need to instead use: folder = "[Google Mail]/Drafts" if you get an error
|
|
that the "Folder doesn't exist".
|
|
|
|
Once your commits are ready to be sent to the mailing list, run the
|
|
following commands::
|
|
|
|
$ git format-patch --cover-letter -M --stdout origin/master | git imap-send
|
|
|
|
Just make sure to disable line wrapping in the email client (GMail web
|
|
interface will line wrap no matter what, so you need to use a real
|
|
IMAP client).
|
|
|
|
Working with Git
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
Extract a topic from pu
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
pu is built this way::
|
|
|
|
git checkout pu
|
|
git reset --keep next
|
|
git merge --no-ff -X theirs topic1
|
|
git merge --no-ff -X theirs topic2
|
|
git merge --no-ff -X theirs blue
|
|
git merge --no-ff -X theirs orange
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
As a consequence:
|
|
|
|
1. Each topic merged uses a merge commit. A merge commit is a commit having 2
|
|
ancestors. Actually, Git allows more than 2 parents but we don't use this
|
|
feature. It's intended.
|
|
|
|
2. Paths in pu may mix up multiple versions if all the topics don't use the same
|
|
base commit. This is very often the case as topics aren't rebased: it guarantees
|
|
each topic is strictly identical to the last version sent to the mailing list.
|
|
No surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you need to extract a particular topic is the sha1 of the tip of that
|
|
branch (the last commit of the topic). Assume you want the branch of the topic
|
|
called 'blue'. First, look at the log given by this command::
|
|
|
|
git log --reverse --merges --parents origin/next..origin/pu
|
|
|
|
With this command you ask for the log:
|
|
|
|
* from next to pu
|
|
* in reverse order (older first)
|
|
* merge commits only
|
|
* with the sha1 of the ancestors
|
|
|
|
In this list, find the topic you're looking for, basing you search on the lines
|
|
like::
|
|
|
|
Merge branch 'topic/name' into pu
|
|
|
|
By convention, it has the form <author_initials>/<brief_title>. When you're at
|
|
it, pick the topic ancestor sha1. It's always the last sha1 in the line starting
|
|
by 'commit'. For you to know:
|
|
|
|
* the first is the sha1 of the commit you see: the merge commit
|
|
* the following sha1 is the ancestor of the branch checkouted at merge time
|
|
(always the previous merged topic or the ancien next in our case)
|
|
* last is the branch merged
|
|
|
|
Giving::
|
|
|
|
commit sha1_of_merge_commit sha1_of_ancient_pu sha1_of_topic_blue
|
|
|
|
Then, you only have to checkout the topic from there::
|
|
|
|
git checkout -b blue sha1_of_topic_blue
|
|
|
|
and you're done! You've just created a new branch called "blue" with the blue
|
|
content. Be aware this topic is almostly not updated against current next
|
|
branch. ,-)
|