This section is addressed to the Committers and to anyone interested in\nknowing how code gets committed into Django core. If you’re a community member\nwho wants to contribute code to Django, have a look at\nWorking with Git and GitHub instead.
\nSince Django is now hosted at GitHub, many patches are provided in the form of\npull requests.
\nWhen committing a pull request, make sure each individual commit matches the\ncommit guidelines described below. Contributors are expected to provide the\nbest pull requests possible. In practice however, committers - who will likely\nbe more familiar with the commit guidelines - may decide to bring a commit up\nto standard themselves.
\n\nHere is one way to commit a pull request:
\n# Create a new branch tracking upstream/master -- upstream is assumed\n# to be django/django.\ngit checkout -b pull_xxxxx upstream/master\n\n# Download the patches from github and apply them.\ncurl https://github.com/django/django/pull/xxxxx.patch | git am\nAt this point, you can work on the code. Use git rebase -i and git\ncommit --amend to make sure the commits have the expected level of quality.\nOnce you’re ready:
# Make sure master is ready to receive changes.\ngit checkout master\ngit pull upstream master\n# Merge the work as "fast-forward" to master, to avoid a merge commit.\ngit merge --ff-only pull_xxxxx\n# Check that only the changes you expect will be pushed to upstream.\ngit push --dry-run upstream master\n# Push!\ngit push upstream master\n\n# Get rid of the pull_xxxxx branch.\ngit branch -d pull_xxxxx\nAn alternative is to add the contributor’s repository as a new remote,\ncheckout the branch and work from there:
\ngit remote add <contributor> https://github.com/<contributor>/django.git\ngit checkout pull_xxxxx <contributor> <contributor's pull request branch>\nYet another alternative is to fetch the branch without adding the\ncontributor’s repository as a remote:
\ngit fetch https://github.com/<contributor>/django.git <contributor's pull request branch>\ngit checkout -b pull_xxxxx FETCH_HEAD\nAt this point, you can work on the code and continue as above.
\nGitHub provides a one-click merge functionality for pull requests. This should\nonly be used if the pull request is 100% ready, and you have checked it for\nerrors (or trust the request maker enough to skip checks). Currently, it isn’t\npossible to check that the tests pass and that the docs build without\ndownloading the changes to your development environment.
\nWhen rewriting the commit history of a pull request, the goal is to make\nDjango’s commit history as usable as possible:
\nIf a patch contains back-and-forth commits, then rewrite those into one.\nTypically, a commit can add some code, and a second commit can fix\nstylistic issues introduced in the first commit.
Separate changes to different commits by logical grouping: if you do a\nstylistic cleanup at the same time as you do other changes to a file,\nseparating the changes into two different commits will make reviewing\nhistory easier.
Beware of merges of upstream branches in the pull requests.
Tests should pass and docs should build after each commit. Neither the\ntests nor the docs should emit warnings.
Trivial and small patches usually are best done in one commit. Medium to\nlarge work should be split into multiple commits if possible.
Practicality beats purity, so it is up to each committer to decide how much\nhistory mangling to do for a pull request. The main points are engaging the\ncommunity, getting work done, and having a usable commit history.
\nIn addition, please follow the following guidelines when committing code to\nDjango’s Git repository:
\nNever change the published history of django/django branches! Never force-\npush your changes to django/django. If you absolutely must (for security\nreasons for example) first discuss the situation with the core team.
For any medium-to-big changes, where “medium-to-big” is according to\nyour judgment, please bring things up on the django-developers\nmailing list before making the change.
\nIf you bring something up on django-developers and nobody responds,\nplease don’t take that to mean your idea is great and should be\nimplemented immediately because nobody contested it. Django’s core\ndevelopers don’t have a lot of time to read mailing-list discussions\nimmediately, so you may have to wait a couple of days before getting a\nresponse.
\nWrite detailed commit messages in the past tense, not present tense.
\nGood: “Fixed Unicode bug in RSS API.”
Bad: “Fixes Unicode bug in RSS API.”
Bad: “Fixing Unicode bug in RSS API.”
The commit message should be in lines of 72 chars maximum. There should be\na subject line, separated by a blank line and then paragraphs of 72 char\nlines. The limits are soft. For the subject line, shorter is better. In the\nbody of the commit message more detail is better than less:
\nFixed #18307 -- Added git workflow guidelines\n\nRefactored the Django's documentation to remove mentions of SVN\nspecific tasks. Added guidelines of how to use Git, GitHub, and\nhow to use pull request together with Trac instead.\nIf the patch wasn’t a pull request, you should credit the contributors in\nthe commit message: “Thanks A for report, B for the patch and C for the\nreview.”
\nFor commits to a branch, prefix the commit message with the branch name.\nFor example: “[1.4.x] Fixed #xxxxx – Added support for mind reading.”
Limit commits to the most granular change that makes sense. This means,\nuse frequent small commits rather than infrequent large commits. For\nexample, if implementing feature X requires a small change to library Y,\nfirst commit the change to library Y, then commit feature X in a\nseparate commit. This goes a long way in helping all Django core\ndevelopers follow your changes.
Separate bug fixes from feature changes. Bugfixes may need to be backported\nto the stable branch, according to the backwards-compatibility policy.
If your commit closes a ticket in the Django ticket tracker, begin\nyour commit message with the text “Fixed #xxxxx”, where “xxxxx” is the\nnumber of the ticket your commit fixes. Example: “Fixed #123 – Added\nwhizbang feature.”. We’ve rigged Trac so that any commit message in that\nformat will automatically close the referenced ticket and post a comment\nto it with the full commit message.
\nIf your commit closes a ticket and is in a branch, use the branch name\nfirst, then the “Fixed #xxxxx.” For example:\n“[1.4.x] Fixed #123 – Added whizbang feature.”
\nFor the curious, we’re using a Trac plugin for this.
\nIf your commit references a ticket in the Django ticket tracker but\ndoes not close the ticket, include the phrase “Refs #xxxxx”, where “xxxxx”\nis the number of the ticket your commit references. This will automatically\npost a comment to the appropriate ticket.
Write commit messages for backports using this pattern:
\n[<Django version>] Fixed <ticket> -- <description>\n\nBackport of <revision> from <branch>.\nFor example:
\n[1.3.x] Fixed #17028 -- Changed diveintopython.org -> diveintopython.net.\n\nBackport of 80c0cbf1c97047daed2c5b41b296bbc56fe1d7e3 from master.\nNobody’s perfect; mistakes will be committed.
\nBut try very hard to ensure that mistakes don’t happen. Just because we have a\nreversion policy doesn’t relax your responsibility to aim for the highest\nquality possible. Really: double-check your work, or have it checked by\nanother committer, before you commit it in the first place!
\nWhen a mistaken commit is discovered, please follow these guidelines:
\nIf possible, have the original author revert their own commit.
Don’t revert another author’s changes without permission from the\noriginal author.
Use git revert – this will make a reverse commit, but the original\ncommit will still be part of the commit history.
If the original author can’t be reached (within a reasonable amount\nof time – a day or so) and the problem is severe – crashing bug,\nmajor test failures, etc – then ask for objections on the\ndjango-developers mailing list then revert if there are none.
If the problem is small (a feature commit after feature freeze,\nsay), wait it out.
If there’s a disagreement between the committer and the\nreverter-to-be then try to work it out on the django-developers\nmailing list. If an agreement can’t be reached then it should\nbe put to a vote.
If the commit introduced a confirmed, disclosed security\nvulnerability then the commit may be reverted immediately without\npermission from anyone.
The release branch maintainer may back out commits to the release\nbranch without permission if the commit breaks the release branch.
If you mistakenly push a topic branch to django/django, just delete it.\nFor instance, if you did: git push upstream feature_antigravity,\njust do a reverse push: git push upstream :feature_antigravity.