Cette section s’adresse aux commiteurs et à quiconque est intéressé à savoir comment le code est commité dans Django. Si vous êtes un membre de la communauté désirant contribuer du code à Django, consultez plutôt Travailler avec Git et GitHub.
\nComme Django est hébergé sur GitHub, la plupart des correctifs sont fournis sous la forme de requêtes de contribution (« pull request »).
\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\nUne façon simple de récupérer localement une requête de contribution est d’ajouter un alias à votre fichier ~/.gitconfig (en supposant que upstream correspond à django/django) :
[alias]\n pr = !sh -c \\"git fetch upstream pull/${1}/head:pr/${1} && git checkout pr/${1}\\"\nVous pouvez maintenant simplement exécuter git pr #### pour récupérer en local la requête de contribution correspondante.
À ce stade, vous pouvez travailler sur le code. Utilisez git rebase -i et git commit --amend pour vous assurer que les commits présentent le niveau de qualité requis. Quand vous êtes prêt :
$ # Pull in the latest changes from master.\n$ git checkout master\n$ git pull upstream master\n$ # Rebase the pull request on master.\n$ git checkout pr/####\n$ git rebase master\n$ git checkout master\n$ # Merge the work as "fast-forward" to master to avoid a merge commit.\n$ # (in practice, you can omit "--ff-only" since you just rebased)\n$ git merge --ff-only pr/XXXX\n$ # If you're not sure if you did things correctly, check that only the\n$ # changes you expect will be pushed to upstream.\n$ git push --dry-run upstream master\n$ # Push!\n$ git push upstream master\n$ # Delete the pull request branch.\n$ git branch -d pr/xxxx\nFor changes on your own branches, force push to your fork after rebasing on\nmaster but before merging and pushing to upstream. This allows the commit\nhashes on master and your branch to match which automatically closes the pull\nrequest. Since you can’t push to other contributors” branches, comment on the\npull request « Merged in XXXXXXX » (replacing with the commit hash) after you\nmerge it. Trac checks for this message format to indicate on the ticket page\nwhether or not a pull request is merged.
\nIf a pull request doesn’t need to be merged as multiple commits, you can use\nGitHub’s « Squash and merge » button on the website. Edit the commit message as\nneeded to conform to the guidelines and remove\nthe pull request number that’s automatically appended to the message’s first\nline.
\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.\nFor example, if a commit adds some code and a second commit fixes stylistic\nissues introduced in the first commit, those commits should be squashed\nbefore merging.
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 may be split into multiple commits if it makes sense.
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.
\nEn plus, veuillez suivre les lignes directrices suivantes lorsque vous envoyez des commits dans le dépôt Git de Django :
\nNever change the published history of django/django branches by force\npushing. If you absolutely must (for security reasons for example), first\ndiscuss the situation with the 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. Everyone doesn’t always\nhave a lot of time to read mailing list discussions immediately, so you may\nhave to wait a couple of days before getting a response.
\nÉcrivez les messages de commit détaillés au passé, pas au présent.
\nJuste : « Fixed Unicode bug in RSS API. »
Faux : « Fixes Unicode bug in RSS API. »
Faux : « 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 separate\ncommit. This goes a long way in helping everyone follow your changes.
Separate bug fixes from feature changes. Bugfixes may need to be backported\nto the stable branch, according to Versions prises en charge.
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. »
\nPour les curieux, nous utilisons un greffon Trac pour cela.
\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.\nThere’s a script on the wiki\nto automate this.
\nPersonne n’est parfait ; des erreurs seront forcément commises.
\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.