On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 04:23:49PM +0800, Sune Brian wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 3:46 PM Conor Dooley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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." > > Hi Dooley, > > You are a bit off topic here sorry if you don't think this is the case but > please do finish reading. > > For what the accused I will give out specific mailing dialogs to explain > [HERE]. > > The major discussion or query is all about the standards or rules. > There is nothing to do with the reply. > > Meantime, I cannot see this as "aggressive/antagonistic responses". > When the request changes it is ridiculous as you also agree: > The header text / wordings from the updated patch itself > had zero impact on the patch itself. > > You are just simply telling me that if you get hit by someone 4 times, > the man who stands out and responds is "aggressive/antagonistic". > > Again we are NOT discussing any mailing dialogs but the U-Boot > patch header standards and rules. > > Meantime you had failed to respond or comment the entire mailing > dialogs do mention any "---" header requirements nor the > necessaries of following docs supreme rule / standard from first place. > > [HERE] > Allow me to quote the request of header and modifications mail history: > > No docs cited nor clearly mentioned the need of specific wordings: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#3680096 > > No docs cited nor clearly mentioned the need of specific wordings: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#3680232 > > So now you are telling me after at least 2 versions of modifications > reviewers suddenly think oh this is not good enough (by my rules) > I think it should be other styles etc. > > Now "LOOK INTO MY EYES" and tell me what is the actual U-Boot > header standard? Reviewer mood or docs that are given out?
Brain, I understand being frustrated with the process. Ultimately, everyone here is a volunteer and trying their best. Which means that yes, we are not entirely consistent about some parts of the review process. I would ask you to please be kind to everyone, and expect being kind in return. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
