Porter's handbook: Mention git-format-patch(1) in using git to make patches

[carlavilla]

Approved!

[val_packett.cool]

Maybe worth mentioning context lines (-U9999) and only generating a patch for the requested commit itself (-1)

[ygy]

documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc

183

[diizzy]

documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc

122

This is only true if you use format-patch?

[debdrup]

This is only true if you use format-patch?

I believe you need to use git-am(1) to get the metadata (author, timestamps, et cetera) applied.

documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc

120–122

Shouldn't git-am(1) be mentioned for git-format-patch?

122

This is only true if you use format-patch?

[pauamma_gundo.com]

A few minor nits.

documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc

120–122

122

Or alternatively, "method for submitting".

[lwhsu]

Update per feedback

[pauamma_gundo.com]

LGTM now, language-wise.

[ygy]

Looks good to me, but let's hear from other reviewers involved here as well.

[imp]

documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc

182

"Where foo is replaced with the first line of the commit message."

183

I'd suggest that "Once the patch is accepted upstream" here. There's no harm in keeping branches around and it's a pain in the butt to try to reconstruct the branch from the hashes in the diffs (which aren't the commit hash, but the object hash).

[lwhsu]

Update per inputs from @imp

[lwhsu]

portmgr : ping