| <!-- |
| Copyright (C) Daniel Stenberg, <daniel@haxx.se>, et al. |
| |
| SPDX-License-Identifier: curl |
| --> |
| |
| # Contributing to the curl project |
| |
| This document is intended to offer guidelines on how to best contribute to the |
| curl project. This concerns new features as well as corrections to existing |
| flaws or bugs. |
| |
| ## Join the Community |
| |
| Skip over to [https://curl.se/mail/](https://curl.se/mail/) and join |
| the appropriate mailing list(s). Read up on details before you post |
| questions. Read this file before you start sending patches. We prefer |
| questions sent to and discussions being held on the mailing list(s), not sent |
| to individuals. |
| |
| Before posting to one of the curl mailing lists, please read up on the |
| [mailing list etiquette](https://curl.se/mail/etiquette.html). |
| |
| We also hang out on IRC in #curl on libera.chat |
| |
| If you are at all interested in the code side of things, consider clicking |
| 'watch' on the [curl repository on GitHub](https://github.com/curl/curl) to be |
| notified of pull requests and new issues posted there. |
| |
| ## License and copyright |
| |
| When contributing with code, you agree to put your changes and new code under |
| the same license curl and libcurl is already using unless stated and agreed |
| otherwise. |
| |
| If you add a larger piece of code, you can opt to make that file or set of |
| files to use a different license as long as they do not enforce any changes to |
| the rest of the package and they make sense. Such "separate parts" can not be |
| GPL licensed (as we do not want copyleft to affect users of libcurl) but they |
| must use "GPL compatible" licenses (as we want to allow users to use libcurl |
| properly in GPL licensed environments). |
| |
| When changing existing source code, you do not alter the copyright of the |
| original file(s). The copyright is still owned by the original creator(s) or |
| those who have been assigned copyright by the original author(s). |
| |
| By submitting a patch to the curl project, you are assumed to have the right |
| to the code and to be allowed by your employer or whatever to hand over that |
| patch/code to us. We credit you for your changes as far as possible, to give |
| credit but also to keep a trace back to who made what changes. Please always |
| provide us with your full real name when contributing, |
| |
| ## What To Read |
| |
| Source code, the man pages, the [INTERNALS |
| document](https://curl.se/dev/internals.html), |
| [TODO](https://curl.se/docs/todo.html), |
| [KNOWN_BUGS](https://curl.se/docs/knownbugs.html) and the [most recent |
| changes](https://curl.se/dev/sourceactivity.html) in git. Just lurking on the |
| [curl-library mailing list](https://curl.se/mail/list.cgi?list=curl-library) |
| gives you a lot of insights on what's going on right now. Asking there is a |
| good idea too. |
| |
| ## Write a good patch |
| |
| ### Follow code style |
| |
| When writing C code, follow the |
| [CODE_STYLE](https://curl.se/dev/code-style.html) already established in |
| the project. Consistent style makes code easier to read and mistakes less |
| likely to happen. Run `make checksrc` before you submit anything, to make sure |
| you follow the basic style. That script does not verify everything, but if it |
| complains you know you have work to do. |
| |
| ### Non-clobbering All Over |
| |
| When you write new functionality or fix bugs, it is important that you do not |
| fiddle all over the source files and functions. Remember that it is likely |
| that other people have done changes in the same source files as you have and |
| possibly even in the same functions. If you bring completely new |
| functionality, try writing it in a new source file. If you fix bugs, try to |
| fix one bug at a time and send them as separate patches. |
| |
| ### Write Separate Changes |
| |
| It is annoying when you get a huge patch from someone that is said to fix 11 |
| odd problems, but discussions and opinions do not agree with 10 of them - or 9 |
| of them were already fixed in a different way. Then the person merging this |
| change needs to extract the single interesting patch from somewhere within the |
| huge pile of source, and that creates a lot of extra work. |
| |
| Preferably, each fix that corrects a problem should be in its own patch/commit |
| with its own description/commit message stating exactly what they correct so |
| that all changes can be selectively applied by the maintainer or other |
| interested parties. |
| |
| Also, separate changes enable bisecting much better for tracking problems |
| and regression in the future. |
| |
| ### Patch Against Recent Sources |
| |
| Please try to get the latest available sources to make your patches against. |
| It makes the lives of the developers so much easier. The best is if you get |
| the most up-to-date sources from the git repository, but the latest release |
| archive is quite OK as well. |
| |
| ### Documentation |
| |
| Writing docs is dead boring and one of the big problems with many open source |
| projects but someone's gotta do it. It makes things a lot easier if you submit |
| a small description of your fix or your new features with every contribution |
| so that it can be swiftly added to the package documentation. |
| |
| Documentation is mostly provided as manpages or plain ASCII files. The |
| manpages are rendered from their source files that are usually written using |
| markdown. Most HTML files on the website and in the release archives are |
| generated from corresponding markdown and ASCII files. |
| |
| ### Test Cases |
| |
| Since the introduction of the test suite, we can quickly verify that the main |
| features are working as they are supposed to. To maintain this situation and |
| improve it, all new features and functions that are added need to be tested in |
| the test suite. Every feature that is added should get at least one valid test |
| case that verifies that it works as documented. If every submitter also posts |
| a few test cases, it does not end up a heavy burden on a single person. |
| |
| If you do not have test cases or perhaps you have done something that is hard |
| to write tests for, do explain exactly how you have otherwise tested and |
| verified your changes. |
| |
| # Submit Your Changes |
| |
| ## Get your changes merged |
| |
| Ideally you file a [pull request on |
| GitHub](https://github.com/curl/curl/pulls), but you can also send your plain |
| patch to [the curl-library mailing |
| list](https://curl.se/mail/list.cgi?list=curl-library). |
| |
| If you opt to post a patch on the mailing list, chances are someone converts |
| it into a pull request for you, to have the CI jobs verify it proper before it |
| can be merged. Be prepared that some feedback on the proposed change might |
| then come on GitHub. |
| |
| Your changes be reviewed and discussed and you are expected to correct flaws |
| pointed out and update accordingly, or the change risks stalling and |
| eventually just getting deleted without action. As a submitter of a change, |
| you are the owner of that change until it has been merged. |
| |
| Respond on the list or on GitHub about the change and answer questions and/or |
| fix nits/flaws. This is important. We take lack of replies as a sign that you |
| are not anxious to get your patch accepted and we tend to simply drop such |
| changes. |
| |
| ## About pull requests |
| |
| With GitHub it is easy to send a [pull |
| request](https://github.com/curl/curl/pulls) to the curl project to have |
| changes merged. |
| |
| We strongly prefer pull requests to mailed patches, as it makes it a proper |
| git commit that is easy to merge and they are easy to track and not that easy |
| to lose in the flood of many emails, like they sometimes do on the mailing |
| lists. |
| |
| Every pull request submitted is automatically tested in several different |
| ways. [See the CI document for more |
| information](https://github.com/curl/curl/blob/master/tests/CI.md). |
| |
| Sometimes the tests fail due to a dependency service temporarily being offline |
| or otherwise unavailable, e.g. package downloads. In this case you can just |
| try to update your pull requests to rerun the tests later as described below. |
| |
| You can update your pull requests by pushing new commits or force-pushing |
| changes to existing commits. Force-pushing an amended commit without any |
| actual content changed also allows you to retrigger the tests for that commit. |
| |
| When you adjust your pull requests after review, consider squashing the |
| commits so that we can review the full updated version more easily. |
| |
| A pull request sent to the project might get labeled `needs-votes` by a |
| project maintainer. This label means that in addition to meeting all other |
| checks and qualifications this pull request must also receive more "votes" of |
| user support. More signs that people want this to happen. It could be in the |
| form of messages saying so, or thumbs-up reactions on GitHub. |
| |
| ## When the pull request is approved |
| |
| If it does not seem to get approved when you think it is ready - feel free to |
| ask for approval. |
| |
| Once your pull request has been approved it can be merged by a maintainer. |
| |
| For new features, or changes, we require that the *feature window* is open for |
| the pull request to be merged. This is typically a three week period that |
| starts ten days after a previous release. New features submitted as pull |
| requests while the window is closed simply have to wait until it opens to get |
| merged. |
| |
| If time passes without your approved pull request gets merged: feel free to |
| ask what more you can do to make it happen. |
| |
| ## Making quality changes |
| |
| Make the patch against as recent source versions as possible. |
| |
| If you have followed the tips in this document and your patch still has not |
| been incorporated or responded to after some weeks, consider resubmitting it |
| to the list or better yet: change it to a pull request. |
| |
| ## Commit messages |
| |
| How to write git commit messages in the curl project. |
| |
| ---- start ---- |
| [area]: [short line describing the main effect] |
| -- empty line -- |
| [full description, no wider than 72 columns that describes as much as |
| possible as to why this change is made, and possibly what things |
| it fixes and everything else that is related, |
| -- end -- |
| |
| The first line is a succinct description of the change and should ideally work |
| as a single line in the RELEASE NOTES. |
| |
| - use the imperative, present tense: **change** not "changed" nor "changes" |
| - do not capitalize the first letter |
| - no period (.) at the end |
| |
| The `[area]` in the first line can be `http2`, `cookies`, `openssl` or |
| similar. There is no fixed list to select from but using the same "area" as |
| other related changes could make sense. |
| |
| ## Commit message keywords |
| |
| Use the following ways to improve the message and provide pointers to related |
| work. |
| |
| - `Follow-up to {shorthash}` - if this fixes or continues a previous commit; |
| add a `Ref:` that commit's PR or issue if it is not a small, obvious fix; |
| followed by an empty line |
| |
| - `Bug: URL` to the source of the report or more related discussion; use |
| `Fixes` for GitHub issues instead when that is appropriate. |
| |
| - `Approved-by: John Doe` - credit someone who approved the PR. |
| |
| - `Authored-by: John Doe` - credit the original author of the code; only use |
| this if you cannot use `git commit --author=...`. |
| |
| - `Signed-off-by: John Doe` - we do not use this, but do not bother removing |
| it. |
| |
| - `whatever-else-by:` credit all helpers, finders, doers; try to use one of |
| the following keywords if at all possible, for consistency: `Acked-by:`, |
| `Assisted-by:`, `Co-authored-by:`, `Found-by:`, `Reported-by:`, |
| `Reviewed-by:`, `Suggested-by:`, `Tested-by:`. |
| |
| - `Ref: #1234` - if this is related to a GitHub issue or PR, possibly one that |
| has already been closed. |
| |
| - `Ref: URL` to more information about the commit; use `Bug:` instead for a |
| reference to a bug on another bug tracker] |
| |
| - `Fixes #1234` - if this fixes a GitHub issue; GitHub closes the issue once |
| this commit is merged. |
| |
| - `Closes #1234` - if this merges a GitHub PR; GitHub closes the PR once this |
| commit is merged. |
| |
| Do not forget to use commit with `--author` if you commit someone else's work, |
| and make sure that you have your own user and email setup correctly in git |
| before you commit. |
| |
| Add whichever header lines as appropriate, with one line per person if more |
| than one person was involved. There is no need to credit yourself unless you |
| are using `--author` which hides your identity. Do not include people's email |
| addresses in headers to avoid spam, unless they are already public from a |
| previous commit; saying `{userid} on github` is OK. |
| |
| ## Push Access |
| |
| If you are a frequent contributor, you may be given push access to the git |
| repository and then you are able to push your changes straight into the git |
| repository instead of sending changes as pull requests or by mail as patches. |
| |
| Just ask if this is what you would want. You are required to have posted |
| several high quality patches first, before you can be granted push access. |
| |
| ## Useful resources |
| - [Webinar on getting code into cURL](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmZ3W1d6LQI) |
| |
| # Update copyright and license information |
| |
| There is a CI job called **REUSE compliance / check** that runs on every pull |
| request and commit to verify that the *REUSE state* of all files are still |
| fine. |
| |
| This means that all files need to have their license and copyright information |
| clearly stated. Ideally by having the standard curl source code header, with |
| the `SPDX-License-Identifier` included. If the header does not work, you can |
| use a smaller header or add the information for a specific file to the |
| `REUSE.toml` file. |
| |
| You can manually verify the copyright and compliance status by running the |
| [REUSE helper tool](https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool): `reuse lint` |