Hi Tom,
On 1/16/26 7:16 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
We have a long block about the expectations and feedback about a patch
applying, or not, as part of the Custodian workflow. Move this to the
Custodians section from the Workflow of a custodian section.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
- New patch.
---
doc/develop/process.rst | 22 +++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/develop/process.rst b/doc/develop/process.rst
index 4bfbf0eb9c63..81e1aa7e34db 100644
--- a/doc/develop/process.rst
+++ b/doc/develop/process.rst
@@ -143,6 +143,17 @@ reworked/resubmitted, or if it was rejected. However, if a
submitter
feels it has been too long since posting their patch and not received
any feedback, it is OK to follow-up and ask.
+Another form of feedback is about applying the patch itself to the
The wording is odd to me, applying the patch isn't a form of feedback? I
would assume feedback to be some interaction between the custodian and
the submitter.
Would
"""
Another form of feedback can happen while applying the patch itself to
the source tree.
"""
help (since we specify later that the custodian can request a rebase if
they feel like it)?
+source tree. The custodian is expected to put in a "best effort" if a
Unnecessary double whitespace before "The custodian".
We could also add a label before this section so we can refer to it
exactly later in this patch. See ".. _dco:" in the current rST file. Not
a blocker.
Looks ok to me. (Just moving text around after all :) )
Cheers,
Quentin
