U-Boot patch submit standard and requirement

[Sune Brian]

On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 6:37 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> 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/20260423042824.3480-1-briansune@gmail.com/#3684415

Quoting message [A]:

- The required format is 'Changes in vN:'. Custom formats such as
   'Changelog vN -> vN+1:' are not acceptable.

Now quoting those examples that don't follow this supreme rule.

Example 1: Reviewed without any change requests as [A] complained
also aginsted [1] supreme standard
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20260508-qcom_spl-v6-1-aaac1ab17b50@seznam.cz/

Example 2: Reviewed without any change requests as [A] complained
also aginsted [1] supreme standard
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20260513015606.591384-2-rs@ti.com/

Example 3: Reviewed without any change requests as [A] complained
also aginsted [1] supreme standard and even "Accepted Stage"
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/BESP194MB2805271AD5DBE47B322F8DC3DA3A2@BESP194MB2805.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/

Example 4: Reviewed without any change requests as [A] complained
also aginsted [1] supreme standard and even "Accepted Stage"
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20260511144437.46645-1-james.hilliard1@gmail.com/

If you want more examples I can keep listing but I think this is more
than enough.

Well in order one t o follow the rules other should do the same.
Under such bases I have no issue however I cannot see this is
the real case.

Enjoy!
Brian

>
> Ultimately the rules are there as guidance and if someone chooses not
> to follow them to the letter there is little that can be done. if the
> individual becomes problematic they will be asked, publicly or
> privately depending on the situation, if they could better comply and
> there may be further action.
>
> It's very hard to act on your generic statement without examples,.
>
> Peter
>
> On Thu, 14 May 2026 at 09:41, Sune Brian <briansune at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 3:29 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Brian,
> > >
> > > Can you provide more context?
> >
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > Not getting you sorry.
> > Context means?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brian
> >
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14 May 2026 at 03:02, Sune Brian <briansune at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to bother you.
> > > >
> > > > I am curious that for me myself I had no issue to follow
> > > > the requirements [1] as long as all patches that are
> > > > passing the review stage do follow the rules in [1].
> > > > However based on most recent commits and reviews
> > > > most of those are not even close to what [1] mentioned.
> > > >
> > > > So at the end, reviewers in U-Boot just made their own
> > > > standard and requested contributors to follow?
> > > >
> > > > Rather the U-Boot itself should all follow the docs rules?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/sending_patches.html#sending-updated-patch-versions
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Brian