With the code and community policy understanding in hand, you are ready to make your changes. It is best to try to make smaller but related sets of changes, even tackling larger tasks in stages, instead of making huge, sweeping modifications. Your proposed changes will be easier to understand (and therefore easier to review) if you disturb the fewest lines of code possible to accomplish your task properly. After making each set of proposed changes, your Subversion tree should be in a state in which the software compiles with no warnings.

Subversion has a fairly thorough ^[48] regression test suite, and your proposed changes are expected to not cause any of those tests to fail. By running make check (in Unix) from the top of the source tree, you can sanity-check your changes. The fastest way to get your code contributions rejected (other than failing to supply a good log message) is to submit changes that cause failure in the test suite.

In the best-case scenario, you will have actually added appropriate tests to that test suite which verify that your proposed changes work as expected. In fact, sometimes the best contribution a person can make is solely the addition of new tests. You can write regression tests for functionality that currently works in Subversion as a way to protect against future changes that might trigger failure in those areas. Also, you can write new tests that demonstrate known failures. For this purpose, the Subversion test suite allows you to specify that a given test is expected to fail (called an XFAIL), and so long as Subversion fails in the way that was expected, a test result of XFAIL itself is considered a success. Ultimately, the better the test suite, the less time wasted on diagnosing potentially obscure regression bugs.