Hi Quentin, Just one follow up!
> 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. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#3684415 "I have reviewed this patch. While the functional change appears reasonable, the patch cannot be applied in its current form because the commit message and version history do not follow U-Boot patch submission conventions. Specifically: - Per-version change history must be placed below the '---' separator. - The required format is 'Changes in vN:'. Custom formats such as 'Changelog vN -> vN+1:' are not acceptable. Maintainers rely on these conventions so patches can be applied directly using git am without manual rework. I will not correct the commit history on behalf of the contributor. Please resend the patch with the commit message formatted correctly. Further review or application will only proceed once this requirement is met. Best regards, Tien Fong" Well I have no idea how you can intercept: "you'll likely need to send another version to fix that" BTW I think this is my final reply. Agree or disagree doesn't matter, at least I know the true story here. Thank you, Brian > Cheers, > Quentin
