Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> While this patch was merged to next, Dscho reported that it was flaky >> on macos pipeline. On further investigation I found this was easily >> reproducible when the leak sanitizer was turned on and the reftable >> tests were run. The fix was simply to add the missing 0 initialization. > > If it is already _in_ 'next', please turn it into a relative patch > on top of it, instead of replacing it. > > That will give you an opportunity to describe the breakage in the > original version, which everybody missed until it hit 'next'. And > you can also credit the folks who reported the breakage, and > describe the fix. > > The reason we do not revert out of 'next' lightly is because the > changes we merge to 'next' are supposed to be reviewed well enough, > which means that any bug we discover later is likely to have been > caused by mistakes any of us may repeat in the future, and it is > worth documenting in our history. > > It is quite a different review philosophy if you compare the rules > we use for patches that haven't hit 'next'. These uncooked patches > may have mistrakes that reviewers can easily spot and get corrected, > and these easy ones are not worth documenting as much. > Thanks Junio, I understand your reasoning here and it makes sense to me. Do you think it is worthwhile to also add something like this to our Documentation? I couldn't find anything there. I'll add a small patch to the bottom of this mail. >> The patch is based on Maint f93ff170b9 (Git 2.48.1, 2025-01-13). > > Thanks. -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] doc: add guideline to tackle bugs in `next` When fixing a bug in a topic already merged into `next`, there are no strict guidelines to follow. While topics in `seen` can be reverted, topics in `next` have undergone thorough review. Documenting fixes for such topics is valuable, as it helps to clarify the issue and contributes to preventing similar problems in the future. Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 958e3cc3d5..72454acf21 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -115,6 +115,13 @@ latest HEAD commit of `maint` or `master` based on the following cases: new API features on the cutting edge that recently appeared in `master` but were not available in the released version). +* If you're fixing a bug in a topic that's already been merged into + `next`, it's preferable to create a patch relative to that topic. + This approach allows you to describe the issue in the original version + that went unnoticed until it reached next. Additionally, it provides + an opportunity to credit those who reported the issue and document + the details of the fix. + * Otherwise (such as if you are adding new features) use `master`. -- 2.47.0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
