[PATCH v2 3/3] doc: develop: process: Explain when/how Custodians may edit patches

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Tom,

On 1/16/26 7:16 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> As seen with commit d503633a3676 ("Revert "doc: board: starfive: update
> jh7110 common description""), it has not always been clear what is and
> isn't allowed by custodians, and what the expectations are. To prevent
> further unintentional conflicts, document the limited cases where
> custodians are allowed to modify patches directly, and how to do that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - New patch.
> ---
>   doc/develop/process.rst | 6 ++++++
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/develop/process.rst b/doc/develop/process.rst
> index 6f5bdd3db957..775a855fd7a0 100644
> --- a/doc/develop/process.rst
> +++ b/doc/develop/process.rst
> @@ -144,6 +144,12 @@ feedback to the submitter of a patch about what is going on:
>       feels it has been too long since posting their patch and not
>       received any feedback, it is OK to follow-up and ask.
>   
> +    * A custodian may make spelling corrections, spacing fixes and other
> +      obviously correct trivial changes. They must also in turn amend

I guess people will have a different interpretation as to *what* is an 
"obviously correct trivial change", based on the U-Boot git history, are 
there some commits that used the [] + SoB form that are fine or 
shouldn't have be made such that we can elaborate a bit more?

I think providing an example would be nice, e.g. the patch as on the 
mailing list and after being merged with changes (obviously one you 
think followed the rules here). This will make the section longer for 
sure but it'll be a visual cue that this is important.

I would suggest to require the custodian to notify as answer to the 
original patch if any change was made when merging the patch, even if 
the changes match the allowed list of changes listed above. What do you 
think?

Cheers,
Quentin