Hi Brian, You have made a very generic statement about levels of accountability on patch sets and consistency in reviews.
Can you be more specific? Ultimately there are subsystem maintainers and each maintainer has variation on how they deal with their subsystem. You reference one doc three times in your statement. Ultimately the rules are there as guidance and if someone chooses not to follow them to the letter there is little that can be done. if the individual becomes problematic they will be asked, publicly or privately depending on the situation, if they could better comply and there may be further action. It's very hard to act on your generic statement without examples,. Peter On Thu, 14 May 2026 at 09:41, Sune Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 3:29 PM Peter Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > Can you provide more context? > > Hi Peter, > > Not getting you sorry. > Context means? > > Thanks, > Brian > > > > > Peter > > > > On Thu, 14 May 2026 at 03:02, Sune Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > Sorry to bother you. > > > > > > I am curious that for me myself I had no issue to follow > > > the requirements [1] as long as all patches that are > > > passing the review stage do follow the rules in [1]. > > > However based on most recent commits and reviews > > > most of those are not even close to what [1] mentioned. > > > > > > So at the end, reviewers in U-Boot just made their own > > > standard and requested contributors to follow? > > > > > > Rather the U-Boot itself should all follow the docs rules? > > > > > > [1] > > > https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/sending_patches.html#sending-updated-patch-versions > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Brian
