Authors: Jason Lowe-Power Andreas Sandberg Steve Reinhardt
If you've made changes to gem5 that might benefit others, we strongly encourage you to contribute those changes to the public gem5 repository. There are several reasons to do this:
The main method for contributing code to gem5 is via our code review website: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/. This documents describes the details of how to create code changes, upload your changes, have your changes reviewed, and finally push your changes to gem5. More information can be found from the following sources:
+-------------+ | Make change | +------+------+ | | v +-------------+ | Run tests |<--------------+ +------+------+ | | | | | v | +------+------+ | | Post review | | +------+------+ | | | v | +--------+---------+ | | Wait for reviews | | +--------+---------+ | | | | | v | +----+----+ No +------+------+ |Reviewers+--------->+ Update code | |happy? | +------+------+ +----+----+ ^ | | | Yes | v | +----+-----+ No | |Maintainer+----------------+ |happy? | +----+-----+ | | Yes v +------+------+ | Submit code | +-------------+
After creating your change to gem5, you can post a review on our Gerrit code-review site: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com. Before being able to submit your code to the mainline of gem5, the code is reviewed by others in the community. Additionally, the maintainer for that part of the code must sign off on it.
Oftentimes users or institutions add features that are necessarily complex, and require many changes on long-lived feature branches. In this case, maintaining a perfect history where all changes work individually is infeasible. When contributing long-lived feature branches back to gem5‘s public repository users may merge entire long-lived branches into a single changeset and contribute their code back as long as 1) the changes have been reviewed by the maintainer 2) the maintainer agrees to allow such a change, and 3) the changes are passing the public tests. Changes that affect common code (outside of a specific maintainer’s purview) will still need to follow the standard gem5 protocol.
If you plan on contributing, it is strongly encouraged for you to clone the repository directly from our gerrit instance at https://gem5.googlesource.com/.
To clone the master gem5 repository:
git clone https://gem5.googlesource.com/public/gem5
There are a few repositories other than the main gem5 development repository.
None right now.
It is strongly encouraged to use git branches when making changes to gem5. Additionally, keeping changes small and concise and only have a single logical change per commit.
Unlike our previous flow with Mercurial and patch queues, when using git, you will be committing changes to your local branch. By using separate branches in git, you will be able to pull in and merge changes from mainline and simply keep up with upstream changes.
To help reviewers and future contributors more easily understand and track changes, we require all change descriptions be strictly formatted.
A canonical commit message consists of three parts:
Tags are an optional mechanism to store additional metadata about a patch and acknowledge people who reported a bug or reviewed that patch. Tags are generally appended to the end of the commit message in the order they happen. We currently use the following tags:
Other than the “Signed-off-by”, “Reported-by”, and “Tested-by” tags, you generally don't need to add these manually as they are added automatically by Gerrit.
It is encouraged for the author of the patch and the submitter to add a Signed-off-by tag to the commit message. By adding this line, the contributor certifies the contribution is made under the terms of the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) [https://developercertificate.org/].
It is imperative that you use your real name and your real email address in both tags and in the author field of the changeset.
For significant changes, authors are encouraged to add copyright information and their names at the beginning of the file. The main purpose of the author names on the file is to track who is most knowledgeable about the file (e.g., who has contributed a significant amount of code to the file).
Note: If you do not follow these guidelines, the gerrit review site will automatically reject your patch. If this happens, update your changeset descriptions to match the required style and resubmit. The following is a useful git command to update the most recent commit (HEAD).
git commit --amend
Before posting a change to the code review site, you should always run the quick tests! See TESTING.md for more information.
If you have not signed up for an account on the Gerrit review site (https://gem5-review.googlesource.com), you first have to create an account.
In gerrit, to submit a review request, you can simply push your git commits to a special named branch. For more information on git push see https://git-scm.com/docs/git-push.
There are three ways to push your changes to gerrit.
git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master
Assuming origin is https://gem5.googlesource.com/public/gem5 and you want to push the changeset at HEAD, this will create a new review request on top of the master branch. More generally,
git push <gem5 gerrit instance> <changeset>:refs/for/<branch>
See https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-upload.html for more information.
The first time you push a change you may get the following error:
remote: ERROR: [fb1366b] missing Change-Id in commit message footer ...
Within the error message, there is a command line you should run. For every new clone of the git repo, you need to run the following command to automatically insert the change id in the the commit (all on one line).
curl -Lo `git rev-parse --git-dir`/hooks/commit-msg \ https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/tools/hooks/commit-msg ; \ chmod +x `git rev-parse --git-dir`/hooks/commit-msg
If you receive the above error, simply run this command and then amend your changeset.
git commit --amend
See https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/intro-user.html#private-changes for details on private gerrit changes.
git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master%private
Once you have pushed your change as “private”, you can log onto [gerrit] (https://gem5-review.googlesource.com) and once you're happy with the commit click the “unmark private” which may be hidden in the “more options” dropdown in the upper right corner.
Only maintainers can bypass gerrit review. This should very rarely be used.
git push origin HEAD:refs/heads/master
There are a number of options you can specify when uploading your changes to gerrit (e.g., reviewers, labels). The gerrit documentation has more information. https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-upload.html
Reviewing patches is done on our gerrit instance at https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/.
After logging in with your Google account, you will be able to comment, review, and push your own patches as well as review others' patches. All gem5 users are encouraged to review patches. The only requirement to review patches is to be polite and respectful of others.
There are multiple labels in Gerrit that can be applied to each review detailed below.
Note: Whenever the patch creator updates the patch all reviewers must re-review the patch. There is no longer a “Fix it, then Ship It” option.
Once you have received reviews for your patch, you will likely need to make changes. To do this, you should update the original git changeset. Then, you can simply push the changeset again to the same Gerrit branch to update the review request.
git push origin HEAD:refs/for/master
Each patch must meet the following criteria to be merged:
Once a patch meets the above criteria, the submitter of the patch will be able to merge the patch by pressing the “Submit” button on Gerrit. When the patch is submitted, it is merged into the public gem5 branch.
Once a change is submitted, reviewers shall review the change. This may require several iterations before a merge. Comments from reviewers may include questions, and requests for alterations to the change prior to merging. The overarching philosophy in managing this process is that there should be politeness and clear communication between all parties at all times, and, whenever possible, permission should be asked before doing anything that may inconvenience another party. Included below are some guidelines we expect contributors and reviewers to follow.