On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 01:13:38PM +0100, Quentin Schulz wrote: > 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 :) )
To be clear, since you see in the next patch I remove the awkward line (which I agree is awkward, but I needed to move the existing text with minimal changes), and further clarify this section as well, I'm not reworking this more in v3. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
