On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 12:14 AM Conor Dooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 07:46:46PM +0800, Sune Brian wrote: > > 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 > > patchwork isn't loading for me, but it's on lore here: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ >
Hi Dooley, Well I am sure you did not have the full picture. The request had nothing to do with under the --- line if this is really the case: Let me bring you back to the history of wonders: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#3680232 https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ None of those reviewers had mentioned this issue once "---" rather they all just alarmingly repeated the wordings. > The comment about the changelog format seems to be very harsh, I doubt > it really makes any difference. What you did and what the maintainer > requested are effectively the same thing at the end of the day. > Of course after reading the docs I got it immediately. However did those who request contributors quote this from first place? > The real problem with your patch is that you put the changelog into the > commit message itself, rather than under the --- line. > None of the examples you quote below do that. > Well after 4 patches of ridiculous request and logic change. I guess you will do the same. At least I am not doing it at the first moment on replying to the mails who or whom you had mentioned. > Also, your responses to Simon in the thread you link are very > aggressive and antagonistic. Please try to be kinder to those that take > time to review your submissions. > Regards, Brian > Cheers, > Conor. > > > > > 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
