Index: doc/src/FAQ/FAQ_DEV.html

===================================================================

RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/FAQ/FAQ_DEV.html,v

retrieving revision 1.107

diff -c -r1.107 FAQ_DEV.html

*** doc/src/FAQ/FAQ_DEV.html24 Dec 2005 19:29:38 -00001.107

--- doc/src/FAQ/FAQ_DEV.html16 Feb 2006 20:08:51 -0000

***************

*** 156,180 ****

<H3 id="item1.5">1.5) I've developed a patch, what next?</H3>

! <P>Generate the patch in contextual diff format. If you are

! unfamiliar with this, you might find the script

! <I>src/tools/makediff/difforig</I> useful. Unified diffs are

! only preferrable if the file changes are single-line changes and

! do not rely on the surrounding lines.</P>

!

! <P>Ensure that your patch is generated against the most recent

! version of the code. If it is a patch adding new functionality, the

! most recent version is CVS HEAD; if it is a bug fix, this will be

! the most recently version of the branch which suffers from the bug

! (for more on branches in PostgreSQL, see <A href=

! "#1.15">1.15</A>).</P>

!

! <P>Finally, submit the patch to pgsql-patches@postgresql.org. It

will be reviewed by other contributors to the project and will be

! either accepted or sent back for further work. Also, please try to

! include documentation changes as part of the patch. If you can't do

! that, let us know and we will manually update the documentation when

! the patch is applied.</P>

<H3 id="item1.6">1.6) Where can I learn more about the

code?</H3>

--- 156,231 ----

<H3 id="item1.5">1.5) I've developed a patch, what next?</H3>

! <P>You will need to submit the patch to pgsql-patches@postgresql.org. It

will be reviewed by other contributors to the project and will be

! either accepted or sent back for further work. To help ensure your patch

! is reviewed and committed in a timely fasion, please try to make sure your

! submission conforms to the following guidelines:

! <ol>

! <li>Has the patch been discussed previously? If it has, give a direct link

! to the message and/or bug# from the mail archives

! (<a href="http://archives.postgresql.org/">http://archives.postgresql.org/</a>).

! If it has not and the patch is of any complexity it is strongly

! recommended you post a message to the appropriate list or you risk

! getting your patch rejected. Refer back to <a href="#1.4">1.4</a> for

! email guidelines.</li>

!

! <li>Ensure that your patch is generated against the most recent version

! of the code, which for developers is CVS HEAD. For more on branches in

! PostgreSQL, see <a href="#1.15">1.15</a>.</li>

!

! <li>Try to make your patch as readable as possible. Try to follow the

! project's code-layout conventions; again, this makes it easier for the

! reviewer, and there's no point in trying to do it

! differently than pgindent. Also avoid unnecessary whitespace

! changes, they just distract the reviewer, and your formatting changes

! will probably not survive the next pgindent run anyway.</li>

!

! <li>The patch should be generated in contextual diff format and should

! be applicable from the root directory. If you are unfamiliar with

! this, you might find the script <I>src/tools/makediff/difforig</I>

! useful.</li>

!

! <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license, so any submissions must

! conform to the BSD license to be included. If you use code that is

! available under some other license that is BSD compatible (eg. public

! domain) please note that code in your email submission</li>

!

! <li>Confirm that your changes can pass the regression tests and list the

! platforms you have tested this on. If your changes are port specific,

! list the ports that it applies to.</li>

!

! <li>Provide an implementation overview, preferably in code comments.</li>

!

! <li>If it is a performance patch, provide confirming test results to

! show the benefits of your patch. It is OK to post patches without

! this information, though the patch will not be applied until *somebody*

! has tested the patches and found a valuable performance effect directly

! attributable to the patch. Given that writing performance tests is not

! terribly exciting, it is recommended you take this task upon yourself.</li>

!

! <li>If it is a new feature patch, confirm that it has been tested for

! all desired scenarios. If it has not, this should be clearly stated as

! a request for a particular kind of test to be performed. Note that the

! patch will go no further until that test has been performed.</li>

!

! <li>New feature patches should also be accompanied by doc patches, and

! pointers to any relevant sections of the SQL standard are recommended

! as well. See <a href="#1.16">1.16</a> for more information on the

! SQL standards.</li>

!

! <li>If your patch changes any existing defaults, you will need to

! explain why this is *required* or the patch will likely be rejected.</li>

! </ol>

!

! <p>Even if you pass all of the above, the patch may still be rejected

! for other technical reasons. You should be prepared to listen to

! comments received and perform any agreed rework. Even if you have

! received positive comments from some community members, others may spot

! problems with your approach, coding style or many other issues.</p>

!

! <p>Successful patches will be notified to you by email and you will be

! credited for that work in the next set of release notes.</p>

<H3 id="item1.6">1.6) Where can I learn more about the

code?</H3>