[PATCH v2 0/6] rSTify contribution-related wiki pages

[PATCH v2 0/6] rSTify contribution-related wiki pages

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

My main motivation was to convert SubmitAPatch[1] based on a chat with
Peter Maydell and Dan Berrangé on #qemu channel (on OFTC).  But the page
also links to a couple of other contribution-related pages, so I
converted them too:

  - SubmitAPullRequest: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest
  - KeySigningParty: https://wiki.qemu.org/KeySigningParty
  - SpellCheck: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SpellCheck
  - TrivialPatches: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches

[1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch

                * * *

Changes in v2:

- Consistently use the preferred rST headings: ===, ---, and ~~~~
  [Paolo]
- Add entries in the devel/toctree.rst [Paolo]
- Clean up the SpellCheck wiki [Peter Maydell]
- In trivial-patches.rst, keep only Laurent as the active maintainer
  [Philippe]
- Convert the wiki SubmitAPullRequest to rST, because this is also
  linked to from the SubmitAPatch wiki page
- Convert the KeySigningParty wiki to rST
- Update the links to point to the rST-generated HTML files, instead of
  wiki

Kashyap Chamarthy (6):
  docs: rSTify the "TrivialPatches" wiki
  docs: rSTify the "SpellCheck" wiki
  docs: rSTify the "KeySigningParty" wiki
  docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPullRequest" wiki
  docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPatch" wiki
  docs/devel: Update the rST index file

 docs/devel/index.rst                     |   5 +
 docs/devel/key-signing-party.rst         | 171 +++++++++
 docs/devel/spell-check.rst               |  20 +
 docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst        | 460 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst |  79 ++++
 docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst           |  51 +++
 6 files changed, 786 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/key-signing-party.rst
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/spell-check.rst
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst

-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH v2 1/6] docs: rSTify the "TrivialPatches" wiki

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

The original wiki is here[1].  I converted by copying the wiki source
into a .wiki file and convert to rST using `pandoc`:

        $ pandoc -f Mediawiki -t rst trivial-patches.wiki -o trivial-patches.rst

Update the active maintainer names to reflect current reality.

[1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches

Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
---
I've only retained Laurent's name as per Philip's review here:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-09/msg05624.html
---
 docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst

diff --git a/docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst b/docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..7df0f901f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+Trivial Patches
+===============
+
+Overview
+--------
+
+Trivial patches that change just a few lines of code sometimes languish
+on the mailing list even though they require only a small amount of
+review. This is often the case for patches that do not fall under an
+actively maintained subsystem and therefore fall through the cracks.
+
+The trivial patches team take on the task of reviewing and building pull
+requests for patches that:
+
+- Do not fall under an actively maintained subsystem.
+- Are single patches or short series (max 2-4 patches).
+- Only touch a few lines of code.
+
+**You should hint that your patch is a candidate by CCing
+qemu-trivial@nongnu.org.**
+
+Repositories
+------------
+
+Since the trivial patch team rotates maintainership there is only one
+active repository at a time:
+
+- git://git.corpit.ru/qemu.git trivial-patches - `browse <http://git.corpit.ru/?p=qemu.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/trivial-patches>`__
+- git://github.com/vivier/qemu.git trivial-patches - `browse <https://github.com/vivier/qemu/tree/trivial-patches>`__
+
+Workflow
+--------
+
+The trivial patches team rotates the duty of collecting trivial patches
+amongst its members. A team member's job is to:
+
+1. Identify trivial patches on the development mailing list.
+2. Review trivial patches, merge them into a git tree, and reply to state
+   that the patch is queued.
+3. Send pull requests to the development mailing list once a week.
+
+A single team member can be on duty as long as they like. The suggested
+time is 1 week before handing off to the next member.
+
+Team
+----
+
+If you would like to join the trivial patches team, contact Laurent
+Vivier. The current team includes:
+
+- `Laurent Vivier <mailto:laurent@vivier.eu>`__
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH v2 2/6] docs: rSTify the "SpellCheck" wiki

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

The original wiki is here[1].  I converted by copying the wiki source
into a .wiki file and convert to rST using `pandoc`:

    $ pandoc -f Mediawiki -t rst spell-check.wiki -o spell-check.rst

As part of this rST converstion, I've removed the dated and `codespell`
invocations, and linked to the GitHub repo.  And cleaned up a couple of
external URLs.

[1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SpellCheck

Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
---
 docs/devel/spell-check.rst | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/spell-check.rst

diff --git a/docs/devel/spell-check.rst b/docs/devel/spell-check.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..61275b73c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/devel/spell-check.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+Spell Check
+===========
+
+QEMU uses British or American English in code and documentation. There
+are some typical spelling bugs which can be easily avoided by using
+tools like ``codespell``.
+
+`codespell <https://github.com/codespell-project/codespell>`__ is a
+Python script which detects (and optionally fixes) the most common
+spelling bugs.  It is packaged for most common Linux distributions.
+
+.. _external_links:
+
+External Links
+--------------
+
+- A spell-check tool for Emacs users:
+  https://github.com/stsquad/my-emacs-stuff/blob/master/my-spell.el
+- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists_of_common_misspellings/For_machines
+- http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/spelling-and-word-lists/misspelled.html
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH v2 3/6] docs: rSTify the "KeySigningParty" wiki

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

The original wiki is here[1].  I converted by copying the wiki source
into a .wiki file and convert to rST using `pandoc`:

    $ pandoc -f Mediawiki -t rst key-signing-party.wiki -o
            key-signing-party.rst

This is a 1-1 conversion; no content changes.

[1] https://wiki.qemu.org/KeySigningParty

Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
---
 docs/devel/key-signing-party.rst | 171 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 171 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/key-signing-party.rst

diff --git a/docs/devel/key-signing-party.rst b/docs/devel/key-signing-party.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..94e133c40e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/devel/key-signing-party.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+Key-signing Party
+=================
+
+.. _whats_a_key_signing_party:
+
+What's a key-signing party?
+---------------------------
+
+A key-signing party is a get-together with PGP users for the purpose of
+meeting other PGP users and signing each other's keys. This helps to
+extend the "web of trust" to a great degree. Also, it sometimes serves
+as a forum to discuss strong cryptography and related issues. In QEMU we
+use PGP keys to sign pull requests, so submaintainers need to have PGP
+keys signed by those with direct commit access.
+
+This wiki page gives general information on how we run key-signing
+parties for QEMU; usually there will be one at KVM Forum. For details of
+a specific event (location, organizer, etc) see the wiki page for that
+event.
+
+The instructions here are pretty specific, because there will likely be
+at least a dozen people trying to arrange to sign each others' keys. To
+get this done in a reasonable time we need to be efficient about it, so
+following the instructions makes it easier and smoother for everyone. If
+(for instance) you don't send your key to the organizer before the
+deadline then it's quite likely you won't get your key signed.
+
+.. _what_do_i_need_for_this_party:
+
+What do I need for this party?
+------------------------------
+
+.. _required_items:
+
+Required Items
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+-  Physical attendance
+-  Positive picture ID
+-  Your Key ID, Key type, HEX fingerprint, and Key size
+-  A pen/pencil or whatever you'd like to write with....
+-  NO computer
+
+.. _required_process:
+
+Required Process
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+-  Generate a key/Remember your pass phrase
+-  All attendees send their public keys to a public keyserver. Unless
+   specified otherwise, use keys.gnupg.net. If for some reason you don't
+   want your key to be in a public keyserver, but still want to
+   participate, please let me know.
+-  All attendees send their key ID, key type, fingerprint, and key size
+   to the host, who will compile everyone's key information.
+-  The host prints a list with everyone's key ID, key type, fingerprint,
+   and key size from the compiled keyrings and distributes copies of the
+   printout at the meeting.
+-  Attend the party. Bring along a paper copy of your key ID, key type,
+   fingerprint, and key size that you obtained from your own keyring.
+   You must also bring along a suitable photo ID. Instruct the attendees
+   at the beginning that they are to make two marks on the listing, one
+   for correct key information (key ID, key type, fingerprint, and key
+   size) and one if the ID check is ok.
+-  At the meeting each key owner reads his key ID, key type,
+   fingerprint, key size, and user ID from his own printout, not from
+   the distributed listing. This is because there could be an error,
+   intended or not, on the listing. This is also the time to tell which
+   ID's to sign or not. If the key information matches your printout
+   then place a check-mark by the key.
+-  After everyone has read his key ID information, have all attendees
+   form a line.
+-  The first person walks down the line having every person check his
+   ID.
+-  The second person follows immediately behind the first person and so
+   on.
+-  If you are satisfied that the person is who they say they are, and
+   that the key on the printout is theirs, you place another check-mark
+   next to their key on your printout.
+-  Once the first person cycles back around to the front of the line he
+   has checked all the other IDs and his ID has been checked by all
+   others.
+-  After everybody has identified himself or herself the formal part of
+   the meeting is over. You are free to leave or to stay and discuss
+   matters of PGP and privacy (or anything else) with fellow PGP users.
+   If everyone is punctual the formal part of the evening should take
+   less than an hour.
+-  After confirming that the key information on the key server matches
+   the printout that you have checked, sign the appropriate keys. Keys
+   can only be signed if they have two check-marks. Note that it is
+   really important to check the full fingerprint -- there are many keys
+   on the keyservers are maliciously generated fakes which have the same
+   short 32-bit keyid but the wrong fingerprint!
+-  Send the signed keys back to the keyservers.
+-  Use those keys as often as possible.
+
+.. _why_shouldnt_i_bring_a_computer:
+
+Why shouldn't I bring a computer?
+---------------------------------
+
+There are a variety of reasons, why you don't want to do this. The short
+answer is it would be insecure, unsafe, and of no benefit. For those not
+convinced, here are some reasons why it is insecure, unsafe, and of no
+benefit.
+
+-  Someone might have modified the computers programs, operating system,
+   or hardware to steal or modify keys.
+-  If people are swapping disks with their keys on them the computer
+   owner has to worry about viruses.
+-  If people are carrying their secret keys with them and intend to do
+   the signing at the actual meeting by typing their passphrase into a
+   computer, then they are open to key-logging attacks,
+   shoulder-surfing, etc.
+-  It is much better to just exchange key details and verify ID and then
+   do the signing when you get home to your own trusted computer.
+-  Someone might spill beer on it.
+-  Someone might drop it or knock it off the table.
+-  More reasons, I don't feel like articulating
+
+.. _other_questions_about_signing_keys:
+
+Other questions about signing keys?
+-----------------------------------
+
+You may want to read the `Keysigning Party
+Howto <http://www.cryptnet.net/fdp/crypto/gpg-party.html>`__ which
+includes an explanation of the concepts behind keysigning, instructions
+for hosting a keysigning party, instructions for participating in a
+keysigning party, and step by step instructions for signing other's
+keys.
+
+If you're looking for quick answers you may want to look to the
+questions and answers below, which all come from the `PGP
+FAQ <http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/pgp-faq/faq.html>`__. It also has a lot
+of other good information, besides what is linked to below.
+
+-  `What is key
+   signing? <http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/pgp-faq/faq.html#KEY-SIGNING-WHAT>`__
+-  `How do I sign a
+   key? <http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/pgp-faq/faq.html#KEY-SIGNING-HOW>`__
+-  `Should I sign my own
+   key? <http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/pgp-faq/faq.html#KEY-SIGNING-SELF>`__
+-  `Should I sign X's
+   key? <http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/pgp-faq/faq.html#KEY-SIGNING-WHEN>`__
+-  `How do I verify someone's
+   identity? <http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/pgp-faq/faq.html#KEY-SIGNING-IDENTITY-CHECK>`__
+-  `How do I know someone hasn't sent me a bogus key to
+   sign? <http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/pgp-faq/faq.html#KEY-SIGNING-KEY-VERIFICATION>`__
+
+.. _other_useful_pgp_links:
+
+Other useful PGP links
+----------------------
+
+A few more links for PGP newbies, or those who wish to re acquaint
+themselves.
+
+-  http://www.pgpi.org/ -- The International PGP Home Page
+-  http://www.pgpi.org/download/ -- Download PGP
+-  http://www.gnupg.org/ -- GNU PGP (Linux)
+-  http://www.pgpi.org/products/tools/search/ -- PGP Tools, Shells, and
+   Plugins
+
+.. _what_if_i_still_have_a_question:
+
+What if I still have a question?
+--------------------------------
+
+If you'd like some help answering it, you can contact the event
+coordinator.
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH v2 4/6] docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPullRequest" wiki

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

The original wiki is here[1].  I converted by copying the wiki source
into a .wiki file and convert to rST using `pandoc`:

    $ pandoc -f Mediawiki -t rst submitting-a-pull-request.wiki \
        -o submitting-a-pull-request.rst

This is a 1-1 conversion; no content changes besides updating the
"KeySigningParty" linkt to the rSTified (HTML) page.

[1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest

Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
---
 docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst

diff --git a/docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst b/docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..d2ee84c85a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+Submit a Pull Request
+=====================
+
+QEMU welcomes contributions of code, but we generally expect these to be
+sent as simple patch emails to the mailing list (see our page on
+`submitting a patch
+<https://qemu-project.gitlab.io/qemu/devel/submitting-a-patch.html>`__
+for more details).  Generally only existing submaintainers of a tree
+will need to submit pull requests, although occasionally for a large
+patch series we might ask a submitter to send a pull request. This page
+documents our recommendations on pull requests for those people.
+
+A good rule of thumb is not to send a pull request unless somebody asks
+you to.
+
+**Resend the patches with the pull request** as emails which are
+threaded as follow-ups to the pull request itself. The simplest way to
+do this is to use ``git format-patch --cover-letter`` to create the
+emails, and then edit the cover letter to include the pull request
+details that ``git request-pull`` outputs.
+
+**Use PULL as the subject line tag** in both the cover letter and the
+retransmitted patch mails (for example, by using
+``--subject-prefix=PULL`` in your ``git format-patch`` command). This
+helps people to filter in or out the resulting emails (especially useful
+if they are only CC'd on one email out of the set).
+
+**Each patch must have your own Signed-off-by: line** as well as that of
+the original author if the patch was not written by you. This is because
+with a pull request you're now indicating that the patch has passed via
+you rather than directly from the original author.
+
+**Don't forget to add Reviewed-by: and Acked-by: lines**. When other
+people have reviewed the patches you're putting in the pull request,
+make sure you've copied their signoffs across. (If you use the `patches
+tool <https://github.com/stefanha/patches>`__ to add patches from email
+directly to your git repo it will include the tags automatically; if
+you're updating patches manually or in some other way you'll need to
+edit the commit messages by hand.)
+
+**Don't send pull requests for code that hasn't passed review**. A pull
+request says these patches are ready to go into QEMU now, so they must
+have passed the standard code review processes. In particular if you've
+corrected issues in one round of code review, you need to send your
+fixed patch series as normal to the list; you can't put it in a pull
+request until it's gone through. (Extremely trivial fixes may be OK to
+just fix in passing, but if in doubt err on the side of not.)
+
+**Test before sending**. This is an obvious thing to say, but make sure
+everything builds (including that it compiles at each step of the patch
+series) and that "make check" passes before sending out the pull
+request. As a submaintainer you're one of QEMU's lines of defense
+against bad code, so double check the details.
+
+**All pull requests must be signed**. If your key is not already signed
+by members of the QEMU community, you should make arrangements to attend
+a `KeySigningParty
+<https://qemu-project.gitlab.io/qemu/devel/key-signing-party.html>`__
+(for example at KVM Forum) or make alternative arrangements to have your
+key signed by an attendee.  Key signing requires meeting another
+community member \*in person\* so please make appropriate arrangements.
+By "signed" here we mean that the pullreq email should quote a tag which
+is a GPG-signed tag (as created with 'gpg tag -s ...').
+
+**Pull requests not for master should say "not for master" and have
+"PULL SUBSYSTEM whatever" in the subject tag**. If your pull request is
+targeting a stable branch or some submaintainer tree, please include the
+string "not for master" in the cover letter email, and make sure the
+subject tag is "PULL SUBSYSTEM s390/block/whatever" rather than just
+"PULL". This allows it to be automatically filtered out of the set of
+pull requests that should be applied to master.
+
+You might be interested in
+`https://git.linaro.org/people/peter.maydell/misc-scripts.git/tree/make-pullreq
+the make-pullreq
+script <https://git.linaro.org/people/peter.maydell/misc-scripts.git/tree/make-pullreq_the_make-pullreq_script>`__,
+which automates some of this process for you and includes a few sanity
+checks. Note that you must edit it to configure it suitably for your
+local situation!
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH v2 5/6] docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPatch" wiki

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

- The original wiki is here[1]. I copied the wiki source[2] into a .wiki
  file, and used `pandoc` to convert it to rST:

    $> pandoc -f Mediawiki -t rst submitting-a-patch.wiki -o
       submitting-a-patch.rst

- The only minor touch-ups I did was to fix URLs.  But 99%, it is a 1-1
  conversion.

  (An example of a "touch-up": under the section "Patch emails must
  include a Signed-off-by: line", I updated the "see SubmittingPatches
  1.12"  to "1.12) Sign your work")

- I have also converted a couple other related wiki pages (included in
  this patch series) that were hyperlinked within the SubmitAPatch page,
  or a page that it refers to.

  - SubmitAPullRequest: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest
  - KeySigningParty: https://wiki.qemu.org/KeySigningParty
  - SpellCheck: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SpellCheck
  - TrivialPatches: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches

- Over time, many people contributed to this wiki page; you can find all
  the authors in the wiki history[3].

[1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch
[2] http://wiki.qemu.org/index.php?title=Contribute/SubmitAPatch&action=edit
[3] http://wiki.qemu.org/index.php?title=Contribute/SubmitAPatch&action=history

Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
---
 docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst | 460 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 460 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst

diff --git a/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst b/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..c1bb30c063
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,460 @@
+Submitting a Patch
+==================
+
+QEMU welcomes contributions of code (either fixing bugs or adding new
+functionality). However, we get a lot of patches, and so we have some
+guidelines about submitting patches. If you follow these, you'll help
+make our task of code review easier and your patch is likely to be
+committed faster.
+
+This page seems very long, so if you are only trying to post a quick
+one-shot fix, the bare minimum we ask is that:
+
+-  You **must** provide a Signed-off-by: line (this is a hard
+   requirement because it's how you say "I'm legally okay to contribute
+   this and happy for it to go into QEMU", modeled after the `Linux
+   kernel <http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=f6f94e2ab1b33f0082ac22d71f66385a60d8157f#n297>`__
+   policy.) ``git commit -s`` or ``git format-patch -s`` will add one.
+-  All contributions to QEMU must be **sent as patches** to the
+   qemu-devel `mailing list <MailingLists>`__. Patch contributions
+   should not be posted on the bug tracker, posted on forums, or
+   externally hosted and linked to. (We have other mailing lists too,
+   but all patches must go to qemu-devel, possibly with a Cc: to another
+   list.) ``git send-email`` works best for delivering the patch without
+   mangling it (`hints for setting it
+   up <http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/process/email-clients.rst>`__),
+   but attachments can be used as a last resort on a first-time
+   submission.
+-  You must read replies to your message, and be willing to act on them.
+   Note, however, that maintainers are often willing to manually fix up
+   first-time contributions, since there is a learning curve involved in
+   making an ideal patch submission.
+
+You do not have to subscribe to post (list policy is to reply-to-all to
+preserve CCs and keep non-subscribers in the loop on the threads they
+start), although you may find it easier as a subscriber to pick up good
+ideas from other posts. If you do subscribe, be prepared for a high
+volume of email, often over one thousand messages in a week. The list is
+moderated; first-time posts from an email address (whether or not you
+subscribed) may be subject to some delay while waiting for a moderator
+to whitelist your address.
+
+The larger your contribution is, or if you plan on becoming a long-term
+contributor, then the more important the rest of this page becomes.
+Reading the table of contents below should already give you an idea of
+the basic requirements. Use the table of contents as a reference, and
+read the parts that you have doubts about.
+
+.. _writing_your_patches:
+
+Writing your Patches
+--------------------
+
+.. _use_the_qemu_coding_style:
+
+Use the QEMU coding style
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+You can run run *scripts/checkpatch.pl <patchfile>* before submitting to
+check that you are in compliance with our coding standards. Be aware
+that ``checkpatch.pl`` is not infallible, though, especially where C
+preprocessor macros are involved; use some common sense too. See also:
+
+- `QEMU Coding Style
+  <https://qemu-project.gitlab.io/qemu/devel/style.html>`__
+
+-  `Automate a checkpatch run on
+   commit <http://blog.vmsplice.net/2011/03/how-to-automatically-run-checkpatchpl.html>`__
+
+- `Spell Check
+  <https://qemu-project.gitlab.io/qemu/devel/spell-check.html>`__ your
+  patches
+
+.. _base_patches_against_current_git_master:
+
+Base patches against current git master
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+There's no point submitting a patch which is based on a released version
+of QEMU because development will have moved on from then and it probably
+won't even apply to master. We only apply selected bugfixes to release
+branches and then only as backports once the code has gone into master.
+
+.. _split_up_long_patches:
+
+Split up long patches
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Split up longer patches into a patch series of logical code changes.
+Each change should compile and execute successfully. For instance, don't
+add a file to the makefile in patch one and then add the file itself in
+patch two. (This rule is here so that people can later use tools like
+```git bisect`` <http://git-scm.com/docs/git-bisect>`__ without hitting
+points in the commit history where QEMU doesn't work for reasons
+unrelated to the bug they're chasing.) Put documentation first, not
+last, so that someone reading the series can do a clean-room evaluation
+of the documentation, then validate that the code matched the
+documentation. A commit message that mentions "Also, ..." is often a
+good candidate for splitting into multiple patches. For more thoughts on
+properly splitting patches and writing good commit messages, see `this
+advice from
+OpenStack <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages>`__.
+
+.. _make_code_motion_patches_easy_to_review:
+
+Make code motion patches easy to review
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+If a series requires large blocks of code motion, there are tricks for
+making the refactoring easier to review. Split up the series so that
+semantic changes (or even function renames) are done in a separate patch
+from the raw code motion. Use a one-time setup of
+``git config diff.renames true; git config diff.algorithm patience``
+(Refer to `git-config <http://git-scm.com/docs/git-config>`__.)  The
+``diff.renames`` property ensures file rename patches will be given in a
+more compact representation that focuses only on the differences across
+the file rename, instead of showing the entire old file as a deletion
+and the new file as an insertion. Meanwhile, the 'diff.algorithm'
+property ensures that extracting a non-contiguous subset of one file
+into a new file, but where all extracted parts occur in the same order
+both before and after the patch, will reduce churn in trying to treat
+unrelated ``}`` lines in the original file as separating hunks of
+changes.
+
+Ideally, a code motion patch can be reviewed by doing::
+
+    git format-patch --stdout -1 > patch;
+    diff -u <(sed -n 's/^-//p' patch) <(sed -n 's/^\+//p' patch)
+
+to focus on the few changes that weren't wholesale code motion.
+
+.. _dont_include_irrelevant_changes:
+
+Don't include irrelevant changes
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+In particular, don't include formatting, coding style or whitespace
+changes to bits of code that would otherwise not be touched by the
+patch. (It's OK to fix coding style issues in the immediate area (few
+lines) of the lines you're changing.) If you think a section of code
+really does need a reindent or other large-scale style fix, submit this
+as a separate patch which makes no semantic changes; don't put it in the
+same patch as your bug fix.
+
+For smaller patches in less frequently changed areas of QEMU, consider
+using the `trivial patches process
+<https://qemu-project.gitlab.io/qemu/devel/style.html>`__.
+
+.. _write_a_meaningful_commit_message:
+
+Write a meaningful commit message
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Commit messages should be meaningful and should stand on their own as a
+historical record of why the changes you applied were necessary or
+useful.
+
+QEMU follows the usual standard for git commit messages: the first line
+(which becomes the email subject line) is "subsystem: single line
+summary of change". Whether the "single line summary of change" starts
+with a capital is a matter of taste, but we prefer that the summary does
+not end in ".". Look at ``git shortlog -30`` for an idea of sample
+subject lines. Then there is a blank line and a more detailed
+description of the patch, another blank and your Signed-off-by: line.
+Please do not use lines that are longer than 76 characters in your
+commit message (so that the text still shows up nicely with "git show"
+in a 80-columns terminal window).
+
+The body of the commit message is a good place to document why your
+change is important. Don't include comments like "This is a suggestion
+for fixing this bug" (they can go below the "---" line in the email so
+they don't go into the final commit message). Make sure the body of the
+commit message can be read in isolation even if the reader's mailer
+displays the subject line some distance apart (that is, a body that
+starts with "... so that" as a continuation of the subject line is
+harder to follow).
+
+.. _submitting_your_patches:
+
+Submitting your Patches
+-----------------------
+
+.. _cc_the_relevant_maintainer:
+
+CC the relevant maintainer
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Send patches both to the mailing list and CC the maintainer(s) of the
+files you are modifying. look in the MAINTAINERS file to find out who
+that is. Also try using scripts/get_maintainer.pl from the repository
+for learning the most common committers for the files you touched.
+
+Example::
+
+    ~/src/qemu/scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f hw/ide/core.c
+
+In fact, you can automate this, via a one-time setup of ``git config
+sendemail.cccmd 'scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback'`` (Refer to
+`git-config <http://git-scm.com/docs/git-config>`__.)
+
+.. _do_not_send_as_an_attachment:
+
+Do not send as an attachment
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Send patches inline so they are easy to reply to with review comments.
+Do not put patches in attachments.
+
+.. _use_git_format_patch:
+
+Use ``git format-patch``
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Use the right diff format.
+`git format-patch <http://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch>`__ will
+produce patch emails in the right format (check the documentation to
+find out how to drive it). You can then edit the cover letter before
+using ``git send-email`` to mail the files to the mailing list. (We
+recommend `git send-email <http://git-scm.com/docs/git-send-email>`__
+because mail clients often mangle patches by wrapping long lines or
+messing up whitespace. Some distributions do not include send-email in a
+default install of git; you may need to download additional packages,
+such as 'git-email' on Fedora-based systems.) Patch series need a cover
+letter, with shallow threading (all patches in the series are
+in-reply-to the cover letter, but not to each other); single unrelated
+patches do not need a cover letter (but if you do send a cover letter,
+use --numbered so the cover and the patch have distinct subject lines).
+Patches are easier to find if they start a new top-level thread, rather
+than being buried in-reply-to another existing thread.
+
+.. _patch_emails_must_include_a_signed_off_by_line:
+
+Patch emails must include a ``Signed-off-by:`` line
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+For more information see `1.12) Sign your work
+<http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=f6f94e2ab1b33f0082ac22d71f66385a60d8157f#n296>`__.
+This is vital or we will not be able to apply your patch! Please use
+your real name to sign a patch (not an alias or acronym).
+
+If you wrote the patch, make sure your "From:" and "Signed-off-by:"
+lines use the same spelling. It's okay if you subscribe or contribute to
+the list via more than one address, but using multiple addresses in one
+commit just confuses things. If someone else wrote the patch, git will
+include a "From:" line in the body of the email (different from your
+envelope From:) that will give credit to the correct author; but again,
+that author's Signed-off-by: line is mandatory, with the same spelling.
+
+.. _include_a_meaningful_cover_letter:
+
+Include a meaningful cover letter
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+This usually applies only to a series that includes multiple patches;
+the cover letter explains the overall goal of such a series.
+
+When reviewers don't know your goal at the start of their review, they
+may object to early changes that don't make sense until the end of the
+series, because they do not have enough context yet at that point of
+their review. A series where the goal is unclear also risks a higher
+number of review-fix cycles because the reviewers haven't bought into
+the idea yet. If the cover letter can explain these points to the
+reviewer, the process will be smoother patches will get merged faster.
+Make sure your cover letter includes a diffstat of changes made over the
+entire series; potential reviewers know what files they are interested
+in, and they need an easy way determine if your series touches them.
+
+.. _use_the_rfc_tag_if_needed:
+
+Use the RFC tag if needed
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+For example, "[PATCH RFC v2]". ``git format-patch --subject-prefix=RFC``
+can help.
+
+"RFC" means "Request For Comments" and is a statement that you don't
+intend for your patchset to be applied to master, but would like some
+review on it anyway. Reasons for doing this include:
+
+-  the patch depends on some pending kernel changes which haven't yet
+   been accepted, so the QEMU patch series is blocked until that
+   dependency has been dealt with, but is worth reviewing anyway
+-  the patch set is not finished yet (perhaps it doesn't cover all use
+   cases or work with all targets) but you want early review of a major
+   API change or design structure before continuing
+
+In general, since it's asking other people to do review work on a
+patchset that the submitter themselves is saying shouldn't be applied,
+it's best to:
+
+-  use it sparingly
+-  in the cover letter, be clear about why a patch is an RFC, what areas
+   of the patchset you're looking for review on, and why reviewers
+   should care
+
+.. _participating_in_code_review:
+
+Participating in Code Review
+----------------------------
+
+All patches submitted to the QEMU project go through a code review
+process before they are accepted. Some areas of code that are well
+maintained may review patches quickly, lesser-loved areas of code may
+have a longer delay.
+
+.. _stay_around_to_fix_problems_raised_in_code_review:
+
+Stay around to fix problems raised in code review
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Not many patches get into QEMU straight away -- it is quite common that
+developers will identify bugs, or suggest a cleaner approach, or even
+just point out code style issues or commit message typos. You'll need to
+respond to these, and then send a second version of your patches with
+the issues fixed. This takes a little time and effort on your part, but
+if you don't do it then your changes will never get into QEMU. It's also
+just polite -- it is quite disheartening for a developer to spend time
+reviewing your code and suggesting improvements, only to find that
+you're not going to do anything further and it was all wasted effort.
+
+When replying to comments on your patches **reply to all and not just
+the sender** -- keeping discussion on the mailing list means everybody
+can follow it.
+
+.. _pay_attention_to_review_comments:
+
+Pay attention to review comments
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Someone took their time to review your work, and it pays to respect that
+effort; repeatedly submitting a series without addressing all comments
+from the previous round tends to alienate reviewers and stall your
+patch. Reviewers aren't always perfect, so it is okay if you want to
+argue that your code was correct in the first place instead of blindly
+doing everything the reviewer asked. On the other hand, if someone
+pointed out a potential issue during review, then even if your code
+turns out to be correct, it's probably a sign that you should improve
+your commit message and/or comments in the code explaining why the code
+is correct.
+
+If you fix issues that are raised during review **resend the entire
+patch series** not just the one patch that was changed. This allows
+maintainers to easily apply the fixed series without having to manually
+identify which patches are relevant. Send the new version as a complete
+fresh email or series of emails -- don't try to make it a followup to
+version 1. (This helps automatic patch email handling tools distinguish
+between v1 and v2 emails.)
+
+.. _when_resending_patches_add_a_version_tag:
+
+When resending patches add a version tag
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+All patches beyond the first version should include a version tag -- for
+example, "[PATCH v2]". This means people can easily identify whether
+they're looking at the most recent version. (The first version of a
+patch need not say "v1", just [PATCH] is sufficient.) For patch series,
+the version applies to the whole series -- even if you only change one
+patch, you resend the entire series and mark it as "v2". Don't try to
+track versions of different patches in the series separately.  `git
+format-patch <http://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch>`__ and `git
+send-email <http://git-scm.com/docs/git-send-email>`__ both understand
+the ``-v2`` option to make this easier. Send each new revision as a new
+top-level thread, rather than burying it in-reply-to an earlier
+revision, as many reviewers are not looking inside deep threads for new
+patches.
+
+.. _include_version_history_in_patchset_revisions:
+
+Include version history in patchset revisions
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+For later versions of patches, include a summary of changes from
+previous versions, but not in the commit message itself. In an email
+formatted as a git patch, the commit message is the part above the "---"
+line, and this will go into the git changelog when the patch is
+committed. This part should be a self-contained description of what this
+version of the patch does, written to make sense to anybody who comes
+back to look at this commit in git in six months' time. The part below
+the "---" line and above the patch proper (git format-patch puts the
+diffstat here) is a good place to put remarks for people reading the
+patch email, and this is where the "changes since previous version"
+summary belongs. The
+`git-publish <https://github.com/stefanha/git-publish>`__ script can
+help with tracking a good summary across versions. Also, the
+`git-backport-diff <https://github.com/codyprime/git-scripts>`__ script
+can help focus reviewers on what changed between revisions.
+
+.. _tips_and_tricks:
+
+Tips and Tricks
+---------------
+
+.. _proper_use_of_reviewed_by_tags_can_aid_review:
+
+Proper use of Reviewed-by: tags can aid review
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+When reviewing a large series, a reviewer can reply to some of the
+patches with a Reviewed-by tag, stating that they are happy with that
+patch in isolation (sometimes conditional on minor cleanup, like fixing
+whitespace, that doesn't affect code content). You should then update
+those commit messages by hand to include the Reviewed-by tag, so that in
+the next revision, reviewers can spot which patches were already clean
+from the previous round. Conversely, if you significantly modify a patch
+that was previously reviewed, remove the reviewed-by tag out of the
+commit message, as well as listing the changes from the previous
+version, to make it easier to focus a reviewer's attention to your
+changes.
+
+.. _if_your_patch_seems_to_have_been_ignored:
+
+If your patch seems to have been ignored
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+If your patchset has received no replies you should "ping" it after a
+week or two, by sending an email as a reply-to-all to the patch mail,
+including the word "ping" and ideally also a link to the page for the
+patch on
+`patchwork <http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/qemu-devel/list/>`__ or
+GMANE. It's worth double-checking for reasons why your patch might have
+been ignored (forgot to CC the maintainer? annoyed people by failing to
+respond to review comments on an earlier version?), but often for
+less-maintained areas of QEMU patches do just slip through the cracks.
+If your ping is also ignored, ping again after another week or so. As
+the submitter, you are the person with the most motivation to get your
+patch applied, so you have to be persistent.
+
+.. _is_my_patch_in:
+
+Is my patch in?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Once your patch has had enough review on list, the maintainer for that
+area of code will send notification to the list that they are including
+your patch in a particular staging branch. Periodically, the maintainer
+then sends a `pull request
+<https://qemu-project.gitlab.io/qemu/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.html>`__
+for aggregating topic branches into mainline qemu. Generally, you do not
+need to send a pull request unless you have contributed enough patches
+to become a maintainer over a particular section of code. Maintainers
+may further modify your commit, by resolving simple merge conflicts or
+fixing minor typos pointed out during review, but will always add a
+Signed-off-by line in addition to yours, indicating that it went through
+their tree. Occasionally, the maintainer's pull request may hit more
+difficult merge conflicts, where you may be requested to help rebase and
+resolve the problems. It may take a couple of weeks between when your
+patch first had a positive review to when it finally lands in qemu.git;
+release cycle freezes may extend that time even longer.
+
+.. _return_the_favor:
+
+Return the favor
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Peer review only works if everyone chips in a bit of review time. If
+everyone submitted more patches than they reviewed, we would have a
+patch backlog. A good goal is to try to review at least as many patches
+from others as what you submit. Don't worry if you don't know the code
+base as well as a maintainer; it's perfectly fine to admit when your
+review is weak because you are unfamiliar with the code.
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH v2 6/6] docs/devel: Update the rST index file

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

Add the entries for contributing-related rSTified wiki docs.

Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
---
 docs/devel/index.rst | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/docs/devel/index.rst b/docs/devel/index.rst
index f95df10b3e..f7bec644f3 100644
--- a/docs/devel/index.rst
+++ b/docs/devel/index.rst
@@ -45,3 +45,8 @@ modifying QEMU's source code.
    vfio-migration
    qapi-code-gen
    writing-qmp-commands
+   trivial-patches
+   spell-check
+   key-signing-party
+   submitting-a-pull-request
+   submitting-a-patch
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] rSTify contribution-related wiki pages

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:03:38AM +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> My main motivation was to convert SubmitAPatch[1] based on a chat with
> Peter Maydell and Dan Berrangé on #qemu channel (on OFTC).  But the page
> also links to a couple of other contribution-related pages, so I
> converted them too:
> 
>   - SubmitAPullRequest: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest
>   - KeySigningParty: https://wiki.qemu.org/KeySigningParty
>   - SpellCheck: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SpellCheck
>   - TrivialPatches: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches
> 
> [1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch
> 
>                 * * *

Sorry; forgot to link to v1, it's here:

    https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-09/msg05604.html
    [PATCH 0/3] rSTify SubmitAPatch, TrivialPatches, and SpellCheck wiki
    pages

> Changes in v2:
> 
> - Consistently use the preferred rST headings: ===, ---, and ~~~~
>   [Paolo]
> - Add entries in the devel/toctree.rst [Paolo]
> - Clean up the SpellCheck wiki [Peter Maydell]
> - In trivial-patches.rst, keep only Laurent as the active maintainer
>   [Philippe]
> - Convert the wiki SubmitAPullRequest to rST, because this is also
>   linked to from the SubmitAPatch wiki page
> - Convert the KeySigningParty wiki to rST
> - Update the links to point to the rST-generated HTML files, instead of
>   wiki
> 
> Kashyap Chamarthy (6):
>   docs: rSTify the "TrivialPatches" wiki
>   docs: rSTify the "SpellCheck" wiki
>   docs: rSTify the "KeySigningParty" wiki
>   docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPullRequest" wiki
>   docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPatch" wiki
>   docs/devel: Update the rST index file
> 
>  docs/devel/index.rst                     |   5 +
>  docs/devel/key-signing-party.rst         | 171 +++++++++
>  docs/devel/spell-check.rst               |  20 +
>  docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst        | 460 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst |  79 ++++
>  docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst           |  51 +++
>  6 files changed, 786 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 docs/devel/key-signing-party.rst
>  create mode 100644 docs/devel/spell-check.rst
>  create mode 100644 docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst
>  create mode 100644 docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst
>  create mode 100644 docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst
> 
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 
> 

-- 
/kashyap

Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] docs: rSTify the "TrivialPatches" wiki

[Laurent Vivier]

Le 19/10/2021 à 11:03, Kashyap Chamarthy a écrit :
> The original wiki is here[1].  I converted by copying the wiki source
> into a .wiki file and convert to rST using `pandoc`:
> 
>         $ pandoc -f Mediawiki -t rst trivial-patches.wiki -o trivial-patches.rst
> 
> Update the active maintainer names to reflect current reality.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
> ---
> I've only retained Laurent's name as per Philip's review here:
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-09/msg05624.html

Thank you Kashyap.

so you should also remove Michael's repo (corpit.ru).

Thanks,
Laurent

> ---
>  docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst
> 
> diff --git a/docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst b/docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..7df0f901f5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
> +Trivial Patches
> +===============
> +
> +Overview
> +--------
> +
> +Trivial patches that change just a few lines of code sometimes languish
> +on the mailing list even though they require only a small amount of
> +review. This is often the case for patches that do not fall under an
> +actively maintained subsystem and therefore fall through the cracks.
> +
> +The trivial patches team take on the task of reviewing and building pull
> +requests for patches that:
> +
> +- Do not fall under an actively maintained subsystem.
> +- Are single patches or short series (max 2-4 patches).
> +- Only touch a few lines of code.
> +
> +**You should hint that your patch is a candidate by CCing
> +qemu-trivial@nongnu.org.**
> +
> +Repositories
> +------------
> +
> +Since the trivial patch team rotates maintainership there is only one
> +active repository at a time:
> +
> +- git://git.corpit.ru/qemu.git trivial-patches - `browse <http://git.corpit.ru/?p=qemu.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/trivial-patches>`__
> +- git://github.com/vivier/qemu.git trivial-patches - `browse <https://github.com/vivier/qemu/tree/trivial-patches>`__
> +
> +Workflow
> +--------
> +
> +The trivial patches team rotates the duty of collecting trivial patches
> +amongst its members. A team member's job is to:
> +
> +1. Identify trivial patches on the development mailing list.
> +2. Review trivial patches, merge them into a git tree, and reply to state
> +   that the patch is queued.
> +3. Send pull requests to the development mailing list once a week.
> +
> +A single team member can be on duty as long as they like. The suggested
> +time is 1 week before handing off to the next member.
> +
> +Team
> +----
> +
> +If you would like to join the trivial patches team, contact Laurent
> +Vivier. The current team includes:
> +
> +- `Laurent Vivier <mailto:laurent@vivier.eu>`__
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPullRequest" wiki

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 10/19/21 11:03, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> The original wiki is here[1].  I converted by copying the wiki source
> into a .wiki file and convert to rST using `pandoc`:
> 
>     $ pandoc -f Mediawiki -t rst submitting-a-pull-request.wiki \
>         -o submitting-a-pull-request.rst
> 
> This is a 1-1 conversion; no content changes besides updating the
> "KeySigningParty" linkt to the rSTified (HTML) page.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
> ---
>  docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 79 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>

Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] docs: rSTify the "SpellCheck" wiki

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 10/19/21 11:03, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> The original wiki is here[1].  I converted by copying the wiki source
> into a .wiki file and convert to rST using `pandoc`:
> 
>     $ pandoc -f Mediawiki -t rst spell-check.wiki -o spell-check.rst
> 
> As part of this rST converstion, I've removed the dated and `codespell`
> invocations, and linked to the GitHub repo.  And cleaned up a couple of
> external URLs.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SpellCheck
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
> ---
>  docs/devel/spell-check.rst | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 docs/devel/spell-check.rst

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>

Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] docs: rSTify the "TrivialPatches" wiki

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:18:40AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Le 19/10/2021 à 11:03, Kashyap Chamarthy a écrit :
> > The original wiki is here[1].  I converted by copying the wiki source
> > into a .wiki file and convert to rST using `pandoc`:
> > 
> >         $ pandoc -f Mediawiki -t rst trivial-patches.wiki -o trivial-patches.rst
> > 
> > Update the active maintainer names to reflect current reality.
> > 
> > [1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > I've only retained Laurent's name as per Philip's review here:
> > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-09/msg05624.html
> 
> Thank you Kashyap.
> 
> so you should also remove Michael's repo (corpit.ru).

Ah, yes.  I knew I missed something but couldn't tell what.  Before I
respin, I'll wait for any other comments on the series.  (If it's the
only change, perhaps I can request whoever is applying the patch series
to make the edit.)

[...]

-- 
/kashyap

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] rSTify contribution-related wiki pages

[Peter Maydell]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 10:04, Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> My main motivation was to convert SubmitAPatch[1] based on a chat with
> Peter Maydell and Dan Berrangé on #qemu channel (on OFTC).  But the page
> also links to a couple of other contribution-related pages, so I
> converted them too:
>
>   - SubmitAPullRequest: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest
>   - KeySigningParty: https://wiki.qemu.org/KeySigningParty
>   - SpellCheck: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SpellCheck
>   - TrivialPatches: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches

I'm not sure that SpellCheck in particular is sufficiently baked
to be in the actual docs. I'd rather just drop the reference to it
from SubmitAPatch. KeySigningParty I'm on the fence about.

-- PMM

Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] docs/devel: Update the rST index file

[Peter Maydell]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 10:04, Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Add the entries for contributing-related rSTified wiki docs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
> ---
>  docs/devel/index.rst | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/docs/devel/index.rst b/docs/devel/index.rst
> index f95df10b3e..f7bec644f3 100644
> --- a/docs/devel/index.rst
> +++ b/docs/devel/index.rst
> @@ -45,3 +45,8 @@ modifying QEMU's source code.
>     vfio-migration
>     qapi-code-gen
>     writing-qmp-commands
> +   trivial-patches
> +   spell-check
> +   key-signing-party
> +   submitting-a-pull-request
> +   submitting-a-patch

You should update the index.rst in the same patch in which you
add the new .rst file. Otherwise Sphinx will complain about
orphan files if you do a build at the commit where the file
was added but before the index.rst was updated.

-- PMM

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] rSTify contribution-related wiki pages

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 02:56:43PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 10:04, Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > My main motivation was to convert SubmitAPatch[1] based on a chat with
> > Peter Maydell and Dan Berrangé on #qemu channel (on OFTC).  But the page
> > also links to a couple of other contribution-related pages, so I
> > converted them too:
> >
> >   - SubmitAPullRequest: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest
> >   - KeySigningParty: https://wiki.qemu.org/KeySigningParty
> >   - SpellCheck: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SpellCheck
> >   - TrivialPatches: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches
> 
> I'm not sure that SpellCheck in particular is sufficiently baked
> to be in the actual docs. I'd rather just drop the reference to it
> from SubmitAPatch. 

Sure, will drop.

> KeySigningParty I'm on the fence about.

This is linked only from the SubmitAPullRequest page.  If we're
ambivalent about it, I'll just keep it in for reference.

I'll also fix the index-updating part you caught in your other review.

Thanks for the review.

-- 
/kashyap

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] rSTify contribution-related wiki pages

[Thomas Huth]

On 02/11/2021 16.51, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 02:56:43PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 10:04, Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My main motivation was to convert SubmitAPatch[1] based on a chat with
>>> Peter Maydell and Dan Berrangé on #qemu channel (on OFTC).  But the page
>>> also links to a couple of other contribution-related pages, so I
>>> converted them too:
>>>
>>>    - SubmitAPullRequest: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest
>>>    - KeySigningParty: https://wiki.qemu.org/KeySigningParty
>>>    - SpellCheck: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SpellCheck
>>>    - TrivialPatches: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches
>>
>> I'm not sure that SpellCheck in particular is sufficiently baked
>> to be in the actual docs. I'd rather just drop the reference to it
>> from SubmitAPatch.
> 
> Sure, will drop.
> 
>> KeySigningParty I'm on the fence about.
> 
> This is linked only from the SubmitAPullRequest page.  If we're
> ambivalent about it, I'll just keep it in for reference.

FWIW, I'd rather prefer to keep the KeySigningParty stuff in the wiki - it 
does not feel like the right content for the docs that we ship in the 
release tarballs.

  Thomas

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] rSTify contribution-related wiki pages

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 04:16:56PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 02/11/2021 16.51, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 02:56:43PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 10:04, Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > My main motivation was to convert SubmitAPatch[1] based on a chat with
> > > > Peter Maydell and Dan Berrangé on #qemu channel (on OFTC).  But the page
> > > > also links to a couple of other contribution-related pages, so I
> > > > converted them too:
> > > > 
> > > >    - SubmitAPullRequest: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest
> > > >    - KeySigningParty: https://wiki.qemu.org/KeySigningParty
> > > >    - SpellCheck: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SpellCheck
> > > >    - TrivialPatches: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure that SpellCheck in particular is sufficiently baked
> > > to be in the actual docs. I'd rather just drop the reference to it
> > > from SubmitAPatch.
> > 
> > Sure, will drop.
> > 
> > > KeySigningParty I'm on the fence about.
> > 
> > This is linked only from the SubmitAPullRequest page.  If we're
> > ambivalent about it, I'll just keep it in for reference.
> 
> FWIW, I'd rather prefer to keep the KeySigningParty stuff in the wiki - it
> does not feel like the right content for the docs that we ship in the
> release tarballs.

Sure, I can leave it on the Wiki as-is.  I thought of keeping it in-tree
as it's a developer- and maintainer-related doc; and to minimize using
the Wiki for important docs such as these.  As we know, being in-tree is
likely to receive updates.  Also ... I'm not sure how many regular users
downloading the tarball will read the docs/devel/ directory. :-)

(/me wonders if there's a way to selectively "uncheck" certain docs when
building the tarball.)

-- 
/kashyap