On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 08:46:25AM +0800, Sune Brian wrote: > 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 first mail in the thread mentions it: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAFLszThg=eamyrohxna7v+nk+omvk356nujavsbu4+kokoj...@mail.gmail.com/ > > > 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. I think this is a reply to the comment below? The aggressive/antagonistic responses begin in your first reply to Simon: https://lore.kernel.org/all/can7c2sadg1mx3zfet5-68iiw3pdjyqva48f_ujjnwshahdm...@mail.gmail.com/ "So forgive me I really don't give a damn on whatever the header requirements." "There are many better things to do rather than complaining about the patch headers." > > 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. > >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
