U-Boot patch submit standard and requirement

[Sune Brian]

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 12:14 AM Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> 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 <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
>
> patchwork isn't loading for me, but it's on lore here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260423042824.3480-1-briansune@gmail.com/
>

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/20260421004719.73491-1-briansune@gmail.com/#3680232

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20260422065910.5398-1-briansune@gmail.com/

None of those reviewers had mentioned this issue once "---" rather they all
just alarmingly repeated the wordings.

> 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.

> Also, your responses to Simon in the thread you link are very
> aggressive and antagonistic. Please try to be kinder to those that take
> time to review your submissions.
>

Regards,
Brian

> Cheers,
> Conor.
>
> >
> > 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