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 <[email protected]>
---
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
