All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev <mricon@kernel.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
	sashiko-bot@kernel.org, sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev,
	sashiko@lists.linux.dev,
	Linux Kernel Workflows <workflows@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kfree@google.com
Subject: Re: Stop false review statements
Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 17:45:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2026051631-trolling-juggling-da1c@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D659E814-069C-439A-B816-1BC383F38E1F@linux.dev>

On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 08:41:43AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> 
> > On May 16, 2026, at 8:20 AM, Konstantin Ryabitsev <mricon@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 05:11:28AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> What the hell is that:
> >>> 
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260515190707.033BDC2BCB0@smtp.kernel.org/
> >>> 
> >>> As a bot you CANNOT MAKE a Reviewer's statement of oversight. You are
> >>> not a damn human do be able to make such statement. You are a bot, a tool.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Where exactly do the rules say that ? I seem to miss that.
> >> 
> >> There is a policy document about _contributions_ made by AI, but I don't
> >> see the one that says that AI agents must not provide Reviewed-by: tags.
> > 
> > From my perspective, AI agents must NOT use the Reviewed-by tag for the
> > following reasons:
> > 
> > - We consider this a "person-trailer" and it implies agency
> > - Adding yourself to a commit via a trailer is a *binding responsibility* for
> >  the change. A lot of tooling will cc the Reviewed-by addresses on follow-up
> >  messages regarding code in this commit. If the address is bogus or doesn't
> >  go to a developer, this is both wasteful and potentially frustrating.
> 
> Hi Konstantin!
> 
> The goal here is to inform maintainers that sashiko has successfully reviewed the patch
> and there were no findings, otherwise maintainers have to go to the web site and check the status.

That's fine.

> I’m not attached to any specific form of it, I thought Reviewed-by is the most obvious form. 
> And we use Reported-by: tags with various tooling for years.

Reported-by: shows the existance of a problem that some tool found, a
subtle difference here.

> What do you think is the best form?
> 
> I’ll pause sending reviewed-by tags until we have a discussion and agreement here.

Just say it in some other text form, that our tools will not pick up.
Like:
	Tool XXXX reports that all is good:
		https://....

or something like that?

thanks,

greg k-h

  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-16 15:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-16  8:05 Stop false review statements Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 12:11 ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 12:16   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 12:23     ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 12:29       ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 13:24         ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-05-16 13:45           ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 21:10           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2026-05-16 15:20   ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2026-05-16 15:36     ` Greg KH
2026-05-16 15:41     ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 15:45       ` Greg KH [this message]
2026-05-16 15:49         ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 18:28           ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-05-16 21:29             ` Derek Barbosa
2026-05-16 21:33               ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 21:59                 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 18:28           ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 18:56             ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 19:00               ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 19:13                 ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 19:25                   ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 19:31                     ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 19:15                 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 20:41                   ` Theodore Tso
2026-05-16 22:32         ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2026051631-trolling-juggling-da1c@gregkh \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kfree@google.com \
    --cc=krzk@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=mricon@kernel.org \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=sashiko@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.