From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A771B1EB5FD; Sat, 16 May 2026 15:45:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778946348; cv=none; b=STfzi50sxDBXsiTv+suoHbraLFMdoU3DQ07bttTFjb/xNzYux1RFZX7kyb+rDPFTi0pY+7lEXJg9lp2mlljlAOuq9cITenPLS7KWE84bq9fFvf3hb2/WtNcsNg4m0HdsHQ12NwnGlQM4Tavej1YXeBTTrY9oRicFCdwHFm7c7sA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778946348; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pRFVmoNmf0bNFcvUJeUo1t7U8gYZLp7kTChwioajW+g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=e4W05xqXoAEsRkY0/7ZJBgFtm4yTBSI+eGkntJN0v4CbxWe4qsWNft2EkY4wZfiuQxNns31rsBPXYXVGIqUqId5rGhoPLRRBvJo7Y7puLyq/7pdCX+/GbzMsiAGgpy8j0ZjR2Dp3mrsp4KEW5z4W1zZPzELcyO2ryMRhOppcFcs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=g5N8A6de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="g5N8A6de" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56847C19425; Sat, 16 May 2026 15:45:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1778946347; bh=pRFVmoNmf0bNFcvUJeUo1t7U8gYZLp7kTChwioajW+g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=g5N8A6deBHMcodEqljjw24yZ/uciuNlZqa3bw4X+wtvCAzVLxIGyBxrxlqwOtaeh4 OXF72/zT6p6yoQZ+smtijIu4GbKkyYIN8J0/ysrjYBVtWUGwU0ajD1rnhhw5d2E6ol ydj991+T3gLLxEQq8OcI4bOR6v26pc4SgNrj1XjQ= Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 17:45:51 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev , Guenter Roeck , Krzysztof Kozlowski , sashiko-bot@kernel.org, sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev, sashiko@lists.linux.dev, Linux Kernel Workflows , Linux Kernel Mailing List , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kfree@google.com Subject: Re: Stop false review statements Message-ID: <2026051631-trolling-juggling-da1c@gregkh> References: <20260516-upbeat-tody-of-feminism-4ab00a@lemur> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 08:41:43AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > On May 16, 2026, at 8:20 AM, Konstantin Ryabitsev 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