From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:11:54 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] Discussion topics / issues In-Reply-To: <201410091603.48309.marex@denx.de> References: <201410071445.50854.marex@denx.de> <20141008200948.GK25506@bill-the-cat> <54364960.5020607@monstr.eu> <201410091603.48309.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: <20141009221154.GA24774@amd> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi! > I don't this Albert is the problem, I am starting to suspect we simply lack > custodian manpower in general. And I also suspect we're not quite inviting > and attractive crowd, which is something we should discuss too ... As I said privately, I believe we have way too many custodians... Anyway, u-boot code looks similar to kernel code, but patch submission rules are really different. Something like this could help..? Pavel --- /dev/null 2014-10-09 01:15:57.354292026 +0200 +++ doc/SubmittingPatches 2014-10-09 23:58:53.058883776 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +Differences from kernel: + +* SPDX license headers are required. + +* puts() is preffered over single-argument prinf() + +* later versions of patch should come with "diff changelog" below "---" + +* subject should begin with tags, such as "arm: socfpga:" + +* should pass checkpatch \ No newline at end of file -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html