On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 6:37 PM Peter Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Hi Peter, Now I understand what you mean. Simply one sentence is a bit hard to read what your thoughts are. That document I am quoting does not refer to the entire docs but only one section of the docs with that link. Before quoting, my declarations as follows: 1) I am not referring to specific people or party 2) I experienced reviewer which again not being specific to one that mentioned this docs is a supreme rules to follow otherwise patch that is committed is not able to push to mainstream 3) I simply do a quick check on u-boot mailing pool and do see a lot of uncompiled reviewed patches that are not following that supreme docs. As such I will being to quote: The mailing that are reported as not passing the standard of [1] Full mailing: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#3684415 Quoting message [A]: - The required format is 'Changes in vN:'. Custom formats such as 'Changelog vN -> vN+1:' are not acceptable. Now quoting those examples that don't follow this supreme rule. Example 1: Reviewed without any change requests as [A] complained also aginsted [1] supreme standard https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ Example 2: Reviewed without any change requests as [A] complained also aginsted [1] supreme standard https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ Example 3: Reviewed without any change requests as [A] complained also aginsted [1] supreme standard and even "Accepted Stage" https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/besp194mb2805271ad5dbe47b322f8dc3da...@besp194mb2805.eurp194.prod.outlook.com/ Example 4: Reviewed without any change requests as [A] complained also aginsted [1] supreme standard and even "Accepted Stage" https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ If you want more examples I can keep listing but I think this is more than enough. Well in order one t o follow the rules other should do the same. Under such bases I have no issue however I cannot see this is the real case. Enjoy! Brian > > 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
