Hi Brian,
What I understood as being your complaints are the following:
1. you were told to put the version changelog in your patch to match the
expected format. You did it in the next version but not the way we
expected it. You were asked a second time to reformat your changelog to
adhere to the expected format, with a more precise guideline. A second
answer then provided you with the link to the documentation.
Appropriate links are
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#3680205
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#3683491
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#3684415
The requests made by Simon (reviewer) and Tien Fong (maintainer) are
valid as this is explained in details in the docs. See
https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/sending_patches.html#sending-updated-patch-versions
where you also have an example. However, I see the requests for
"'Changes in vN:' rather than 'Changelog vN -> vN+1:'" as nitpicks. I'm
almost certain neither Simon nor Tien Fong would have requested you to
change that if it was the only thing to complain about. It's just that
the changelog being part of the commit log is an issue, and since you'll
likely need to send another version to fix that, "oh by the way, also
try to do this while at it" happened. It's not unusual. If it was the
only feedback, I would have understood the frustration.
The second and third links do NOT invalidate what had been said in the
first one. There was a misunderstanding because there was room for
misunderstanding. I understand the request made by Simon in the first
mail could have resulted in the patch you sent, which doesn't match the
expected format. Nobody's fault here, misunderstandings happen all the
time. We make things clearer in subsequent versions of the patch or
discuss them. I do not consider what Simon did as being hostile. If
something is unclear, you can always ask for clarification.
I will also note that Simon took the time to better explain the rule a
second time once the misunderstanding was detected and to provide a link
to the documentation.
I will join Neil here and tell you that the phrasing in
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#3683515
and
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#3684100
is unacceptable towards Simon.
Additionally, dismissing Simon's comments simply because he's a reviewer
and not a maintainer is not the solution. The project relies on
reviewers because maintainers do not have the time to review each and
every version of the patch. We put trust in reviewers so that the work
load is lighter on maintainers (and hopefully, with more eyes, we miss
fewer bugs).
2. you feel like you were victim of a double standard because reviewers
didn't complain about missing or misformated changelog from other
contributors.
Provided (by you) links are
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/besp194mb2805271ad5dbe47b322f8dc3da...@besp194mb2805.eurp194.prod.outlook.com/
(and some others)
First, there are some patches for which Simon (or Tien Fong, who shared
Simon's opinion on changelog formatting) didn't participate in.
Second, your examples sometimes are patch series which do have a cover
letter where the changelog is mentioned. They do not appear on patchwork
(but they do on the mailing list). See
https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/[email protected]/
and lore.kernel.org/u-boot/[email protected]/. Yes we
have inconsistencies here. Simon has complained in the past with
changelog per-patch being better (for him) than changelog per-series
(i.e. in the cover-letter). Having *some* is good enough for the project
is what we decided on.
Third, you cannot cherry-pick a single patch version and say "look here
nobody said anything", later patch versions may receive feedback like
you had, earlier versions may have received feedback that wasn't taken
into account (this should not happen, but mistakes happen). Usually,
once a patch or two gets feedback that something warrants another
version, reviewers and maintainers pay less attention to the patch
series as we know we'll have another version to look at in a few days/weeks.
Fourth, different reviewers and maintainers are different people. They
have their own rules, either stricter, or more lax. It may also depend
on the reviewer or maintainer mood at the time. You cannot hold Simon
and Tien Fong responsible for another reviewer or maintainer not telling
another contributor to follow rules.
If you want to name that multistandard, then yes, we have that. It's
sometimes desired (not every maintainer wants to apply the same rules
with the same strictness as others, that's their right as a maintainer),
sometimes not ("oops, we merged something too quick and forgot to check
all the rules"). But I don't believe we're applying the multistandard to
someone in particular. If this happens, please bring this up as I'm
pretty sure this is not something we want to see happening.
If there are things we can automate or document better, then please
consider sending patches to improve the situation.
As an aside, I'm not a native speaker and we may be coming from
different cultures, so this might explain why I'm reading most of your
mails as being aggressive, dismissive and sometimes plain rude. I
understand it can be a language barrier, but please remember that we
have a somewhat diverse community where people come from different
cultures and different levels of understanding of the English language
so what may be rude or not rude to you may be received differently by
people reading you (and vice-versa).
As personal anecdote, I still cringe when I remember participating on
some forums when I was 14 and thinking "bullshit" was an okay synonym
for "a lie" or a simple difference of opinion, I cannot imagine how the
other people felt when reading me back then.
I'll finish by saying that sometimes it's easier to spin a new version
than arguing or getting angry, even if I slightly disagree with the
reviewer or maintainer. It's better for my health and it's less
time-consuming. Picking one's battles is not an easy task :)
Cheers,
Quentin
