[PATCH v3 0/3] rSTify contribution-related wiki pages

[PATCH v3 0/3] 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
  - TrivialPatches: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches

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

I built with `configure --target-list=x86_64-softmmu --enable-docs &&
make -j8`, and verified there isn't any breakage in the rendered docs.

                * * *
Changes in v3:

- Update index entry as part of each individual rST conversion patch
  [PeterM]
- Drop the SpellCheck rST [PeterM]
- Drop the KeySigning rST [ThomasH]
- Drop mjt's Git repo from trivial-patches.rst [LaurentV]

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 (3):
  docs: rSTify the "TrivialPatches" wiki
  docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPullRequest" wiki
  docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPatch" wiki

 docs/devel/index.rst                     |   3 +
 docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst        | 456 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst |  76 ++++
 docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst           |  50 +++
 4 files changed, 585 insertions(+)
 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 v3 1/3] 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 (and drop Michael Tokarev's inactive
repo) to reflect current reality.

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

Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
---
 docs/devel/index.rst           |  1 +
 docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst

diff --git a/docs/devel/index.rst b/docs/devel/index.rst
index f95df10b3e..f1822a35bf 100644
--- a/docs/devel/index.rst
+++ b/docs/devel/index.rst
@@ -45,3 +45,4 @@ modifying QEMU's source code.
    vfio-migration
    qapi-code-gen
    writing-qmp-commands
+   trivial-patches
diff --git a/docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst b/docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..db3f2001da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/devel/trivial-patches.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+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://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 v3 2/3] 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.

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

Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
---
 docs/devel/index.rst                     |  1 +
 docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst

diff --git a/docs/devel/index.rst b/docs/devel/index.rst
index f1822a35bf..816eb7b7b0 100644
--- a/docs/devel/index.rst
+++ b/docs/devel/index.rst
@@ -46,3 +46,4 @@ modifying QEMU's source code.
    qapi-code-gen
    writing-qmp-commands
    trivial-patches
+   submitting-a-pull-request
diff --git a/docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst b/docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..8729d29036
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+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://wiki.qemu.org/KeySigningParty>`__ (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 the `make-pullreq
+<https://git.linaro.org/people/peter.maydell/misc-scripts.git/tree/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 v3 3/3] 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
  - 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/index.rst              |   1 +
 docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst | 456 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 457 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst

diff --git a/docs/devel/index.rst b/docs/devel/index.rst
index 816eb7b7b0..c3cfa9e41f 100644
--- a/docs/devel/index.rst
+++ b/docs/devel/index.rst
@@ -47,3 +47,4 @@ modifying QEMU's source code.
    writing-qmp-commands
    trivial-patches
    submitting-a-pull-request
+   submitting-a-patch
diff --git a/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst b/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..c80dad47fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,456 @@
+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>`__
+
+.. _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

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] rSTify contribution-related wiki pages

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 11/10/21 15:48, 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
>   - TrivialPatches: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/TrivialPatches
> 
> [1] https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch
> 
> I built with `configure --target-list=x86_64-softmmu --enable-docs &&
> make -j8`, and verified there isn't any breakage in the rendered docs.
> 
>                 * * *
> Changes in v3:
> 
> - Update index entry as part of each individual rST conversion patch
>   [PeterM]
> - Drop the SpellCheck rST [PeterM]
> - Drop the KeySigning rST [ThomasH]
> - Drop mjt's Git repo from trivial-patches.rst [LaurentV]
> 
> 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 (3):
>   docs: rSTify the "TrivialPatches" wiki
>   docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPullRequest" wiki
>   docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPatch" wiki

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

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPatch" wiki

[Thomas Huth]

On 10/11/2021 15.49, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> - 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
>    - 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/index.rst              |   1 +
>   docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst | 456 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 457 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst
> 
> diff --git a/docs/devel/index.rst b/docs/devel/index.rst
> index 816eb7b7b0..c3cfa9e41f 100644
> --- a/docs/devel/index.rst
> +++ b/docs/devel/index.rst
> @@ -47,3 +47,4 @@ modifying QEMU's source code.
>      writing-qmp-commands
>      trivial-patches
>      submitting-a-pull-request
> +   submitting-a-patch

I'd suggest to insert this before the pull-request entry, in case anybody 
reads the manual sequentially, it might be better to learn about the patch 
submission process first before reading about pull requests.
(I can fix this up when picking up the patch, no need to resend)

> diff --git a/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst b/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..c80dad47fa
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst
...
> +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

That hyperlink showed up in the rendered output. I'll fix it up by removing 
the "``" quotes.

> +.. _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 ".".

That ".". looks a little bit weird in the output ... maybe we should replace 
it with "does not end with a dot." ?

> 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

That --- gets translated into a — character ... I'll replace the "---" with 
``---`` to fix it.

  Thomas

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPatch" wiki

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:08:52AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 10/11/2021 15.49, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:

[...]

> >      writing-qmp-commands
> >      trivial-patches
> >      submitting-a-pull-request
> > +   submitting-a-patch
> 
> I'd suggest to insert this before the pull-request entry, in case anybody
> reads the manual sequentially, it might be better to learn about the patch
> submission process first before reading about pull requests.

I did notice it when looking at the rendered output, and still missed to
fix it; bad me.

> (I can fix this up when picking up the patch, no need to resend)

Thank you.

[...]

> > +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
> 
> That hyperlink showed up in the rendered output. I'll fix it up by removing
> the "``" quotes.

Oops, good catch.

[...]

> > +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 ".".
> 
> That ".". looks a little bit weird in the output ... maybe we should replace
> it with "does not end with a dot." ?

Re-looking the output, yes it does look odd.  And yes, your amendment
is good.

[...]

> > +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
> 
> That --- gets translated into a — character ... I'll replace the "---" with
> ``---`` to fix it.

Ah, when I locally ran `rst2html5 submitting-a-patch.rst
submitting-a-patch.html` it retained the "---", but when I built QEMU
(`configure --target-list=x86_64-softmmu --enable-docs`), Sphinx does
turn it into an em-dash (—), and missed to notice it.

Thanks for the careful review and submitting the PR.  I'm assuming I
don't need to respin a v4.
 

-- 
/kashyap

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPatch" wiki

[Thomas Huth]

On 17/11/2021 11.25, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
...
>>> +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 ".".
>>
>> That ".". looks a little bit weird in the output ... maybe we should replace
>> it with "does not end with a dot." ?
> 
> Re-looking the output, yes it does look odd.  And yes, your amendment
> is good.

I haven't updated that one while picking up the patch - so we might want to 
fix it with an additional patch on top.

>>> +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
>>
>> That --- gets translated into a — character ... I'll replace the "---" with
>> ``---`` to fix it.
> 
> Ah, when I locally ran `rst2html5 submitting-a-patch.rst
> submitting-a-patch.html` it retained the "---", but when I built QEMU
> (`configure --target-list=x86_64-softmmu --enable-docs`), Sphinx does
> turn it into an em-dash (—), and missed to notice it.
> 
> Thanks for the careful review and submitting the PR.  I'm assuming I
> don't need to respin a v4.

Right, patches have been merged now.

Something I just noticed afterwards, after looking at the pages online: 
https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.html uses 
"Submit" in the heading, while 
https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/submitting-a-patch.html uses 
"Submitting" ... looks a little bit inconsequent ... should we change it to 
use one form only? The Wiki used "submit", not "submitting", so maybe use 
that one?

  Thomas

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] docs: rSTify the "SubmitAPatch" wiki

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:43:56PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 17/11/2021 11.25, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:

[...]

> > > That ".". looks a little bit weird in the output ... maybe we should replace
> > > it with "does not end with a dot." ?
> > 
> > Re-looking the output, yes it does look odd.  And yes, your amendment
> > is good.
> 
> I haven't updated that one while picking up the patch - so we might want to
> fix it with an additional patch on top.

Sure, no prob.

[...]

> > Thanks for the careful review and submitting the PR.  I'm assuming I
> > don't need to respin a v4.
> 
> Right, patches have been merged now.

Thanks!

> Something I just noticed afterwards, after looking at the pages online:
> https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.html uses
> "Submit" in the heading, while
> https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/submitting-a-patch.html uses
> "Submitting" ... looks a little bit inconsequent ... should we change it to
> use one form only? The Wiki used "submit", not "submitting", so maybe use
> that one?

Right, I generally also prefer the imperative mood ("submit").  I went
with "submitting" to keep things a bit consistent with the existing
convention: 'writing-qmp-commands.rst", "testing.rst", "tracing.rst",
"secure-coding-practises.rst", etc.  And as discussed on #qemu, OFTC,
I'll update the heading in submitting-a-pull-request.rst from "submit"
to "submitting".

Also, thanks for reminding on IRC of updating 'qemu-web' links to update
from Wiki to the in-tree docs.

    https://www.qemu.org/contribute/

I'll send a follow-up for that.  I see a three occurrences in the
'qemu-web' repo:

    $> git grep SubmitAPatch
    CONTRIBUTING.md:https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch
    contribute.md:Please do not submit merge requests on GitLab; patches are sent to the mailing list according to QEMU's [patch submissions guidelines](https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch).
    contribute/report-a-bug.md:QEMU does not use GitLab merge requests; patches are sent to the mailing list according to QEMU's [patch submissions guidelines](https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch).

-- 
/kashyap