|Version 29 (modified by 4 years ago) (diff),|
Guidelines for using git with GHC
GHC uses git for revision control. This page describes various GHC-specific conventions for using git, together with some suggestions and tips for using git effectively.
- Try to make small patches (i.e. work in consistent increments).
- Separate changes that affect functionality from those that just affect code layout, indentation, whitespace, filenames etc. This means that when looking at patches later, we don't have to wade through loads of non-functional changes to get to the important parts of the patch.
- If possible, commit often. This helps to avoid conflicts.
- Only push when your tree passes validation: see TestingPatches.
- Discuss anything you think might be controversial before pushing it.
- When making changes to other repositories in a GHC tree, see Repositories.
Please make sure you have setup git to use the correct name and email for your commits. Use the same name and email on all machines you may push from.
$ git config --global user.name "Firstname Lastname" # Sets the name of the user for all git instances on the system $ git config --global user.email "firstname.lastname@example.org"
This will set your name and email globally. To set it for just the GHC repo, remove the
--global flag. Also, the environment variables
GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL will override git-config settings if they are defined.
We have a simple convention for commit log messages:
- If your patch fixes breakage in the build, then begin the patch name with
"FIX BUILD". e.g.
FIX BUILD Use the right find on Windows systems; fixes bindist creation
- If your patch fixes a bug, then include the ticket number in the form
#NNNNin the patch name, e.g.
withMVar family have a bug (fixes #767)Git will then add a link to the commit from the ticket, so that people watching the ticket can see that a fix has been committed, and in the future we can easily find the patch that fixed the ticket. When navigating the git history on Trac, you will also be able to jump directly to the ticket from the commit.
Files in GHC repos should use Unix conventions for line endings. If you are on Windows, ensure that git handles line-endings sanely by running:
git config --global core.autocrlf false
To find out what files in your tree have windows (CRLF) line endings, use
find . -name '*hs' | xargs file | grep CRLF
Do this before you commit them!
Workflow with validate
All changes to GHC and the libraries need to be validated before they can be pushed to the main repositories. Validation can take a while - 30 minutes on a 4-core machine is typical - so ideally you want to be validating changes while you are working in a separate tree. In fact, there are other compelling reasons to have two trees in your development workflow, one for working in and one for validation:
- Validation uses build settings that are different to the ones you would normally use while developing: it adds more libraries (DPH), builds extra ways (dynamic libraries), and builds all the documentation, so you don't want to use the same build for validation and ordinary development. In the development tree we use build settings optimised for development:
-O0 -DDEBUGfor the compiler, minimal libraries and ways so that rebuilding is fast.
- Having two trees eliminates a common source of breakage in the main repository: with one tree it is easy to add new files but forget to commit them. Your tests will work, but the build will be broken for others. If you have to pull your changes into a separate tree for testing, you'll notice the missing files before you push.
The typical workflow is to work in the development tree, pull into the validate tree, validate, and then push from the validate tree. But what if validate fails? There are two options:
- discard the patch in the validate tree (using some instance of
git reset) and go back to the working tree to fix it
- or, add a new patch in the validate tree to fix the problem and re-validate
(1) is more for "back to the drawing board" kinds of failure, whereas (2) is for cases where you just need to fix a warning or some other minor error exposed by validate.
Setting up the trees
Let's call the two trees
Set up your repos like this:
$ git clone http://darcs.haskell.org/ghc.git ghc-working $ cd ghc-working $ ./sync-all --testsuite --no-dph get $ cd .. $ git clone ghc-working ghc-validate $ cd ghc-validate $ ./sync-all --testsuite get $ ./sync-all -r http://darcs.haskell.org/ remote set-url origin # Get the dph libraries too $ ./sync-all --testsuite get $ ./sync-all -r `pwd`/../ghc-working remote add working $ ./sync-all -r <account>@darcs.haskell.org:/home/darcs remote set-url --push origin
<account> is your account on
darcs.haskell.org; omit this step if you don't have one, you can still submit patches via the mailing list (using
git format-patch will help you with this) or send a pull request to get your changes in GHC).
Now you have
ghc-validate repos, and additionally the
ghc-validate repo tree is set up with a remote
working pointing to the
ghc-working tree, and pushing from
ghc-validate will push changes via SSH to
The rebase workflow
How do we move patches from
ghc-validate? There are several options here. One is to just use
sync-all pull working and do merging as usual. This works fine, but results in extra "merge commits" that aren't particularly helpful and clutter the commit logs and the mailing list. A better approach is to rebase patches before committing. This is done as follows:
- Pull from
./sync-all pull working master
- Rebase onto origin/master:
./sync-all pull --rebase. You may encounter conflicts, in which case git will tell you what to do (usually fix the conflict and then
git rebase --continuein the appropriate repository), then you can resume with
./sync-all --resume pull --rebaseat the top.
- Check what you have relative to origin:
- if validate went through,
./sync-all push(you might like to check once more what will be pushed:
If push fails because patches have been pushed by someone else while you were validating, it is acceptable to
git pull --rebase in that repository and push if there are no conflicts (no need to validate again).
Now, the patches pushed this way are different (have different hashes) from the patches that you originally committed in
ghc-working, and if you try to pull these patches in
ghc-working again, confusion and conflicts will ensue. Fortunately there's an easy solution: just rebase again in
ghc-working, and git will notice that your patches are already upstream and will discard the old versions. It's as simple as
$ cd ghc-working $ ./sync-all pull --rebase
If rebase encounters a conflict at any point, it will tell you what to do. After fixing the conflict and completing the rebase manually, you can then resume the pull with
./sync-all --resume pull --rebase.
There is a slight tweak to this workflow that you might find more convenient: do a
./sync-all pull --rebase in the
ghc-working tree prior to pulling into
ghc-validate. This lets you fix conflicts in
ghc-working rather than in
ghc-validate, and test the resolution before validating. The downside is that you might now have to do a lot of rebuilding in your
ghc-working tree if there are a lot of changes to pull.
Please write your patch and then rebase to the latest version of GHC HEAD before sending to us. You can use the following command to send patches via email:
git send-email --email@example.com <hash-id> -1
<hash-id> is the hash of the commit to send. If you'd prefer to create patch files and send them via email another way (or attach them to trac tickets) then you can use this command:
git format-patch [-o <outputdir>] <revision range>
<revision range> specifies the commit that git should stop at when going from HEAD backwards, creating a patch for each commit in the range <revision range>..HEAD.
Applying patches from email
git am -3 <email>