summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>2018-07-03 13:32:02 +0300
committerDerek Foreman <derek.foreman.samsung@gmail.com>2018-07-13 11:20:07 -0500
commit9f80af930b76139fdb851708d70fa26ddf3ed09e (patch)
tree82b07819004354cb5bdb337b95b85a3cd8d74f55
parent3cfdd56af4444fce71d4ae8c8e515cec8eafb3e2 (diff)
downloadwayland-9f80af930b76139fdb851708d70fa26ddf3ed09e.tar.gz
contributing: about re-sending patches
This is what is generally expected from people who re-send patches, whether the patches are their own or not. Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk> Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com> Reviewed-by: Derek Foreman <derek.foreman.samsung@gmail.com>
-rw-r--r--CONTRIBUTING.md8
1 files changed, 8 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md
index cbe02a3..9442d75 100644
--- a/CONTRIBUTING.md
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md
@@ -43,6 +43,14 @@ responsibility for the copyright status of the code.
We won't reject patches that lack S-o-b, but it is strongly recommended.
+When you re-send patches, revised or not, it would be very good to document the
+changes compared to the previous revision in the commit message and/or the
+cover letter. If you have already received Reviewed-by or Acked-by tags, you
+should evaluate whether they still apply and include them in the respective
+commit messages. Otherwise the tags may be lost, reviewers miss the credit they
+deserve, and the patches may cause redundant review effort.
+
+
Tracking patches and following up
---------------------------------