Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko?

[Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>]

> On Jul 14, 2026, at 5:59 PM, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 10:55:42PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 12:41:20 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>> Individuals can set their
>>>>>>> spam filters up if they don't want to get these emails, I can't control
>>>>>>> it. Providing individual authors an option "I don't want my patches
>>>>>>> to be reviewed" sound strange to me. It's like "I don't want my patches
>>>>>>> to be tested by unit tests".  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree with you, and, on my head, not sending e-mails to the author
>>>>>> is a clear violation to one of the most basic net etiquette rule on
>>>>>> mailing lists: any replies to posts there should reach the author.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't know where that one comes from.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What happened to this other "most basic rule" that subscription to
>>>>> services that deliver e-mails should be opt-in ?
>>> 
>>> Replying to an e-mail is not subscribing to a service. It is the
>>> author's right to know if one replies publicly to his e-mails.
>>> Explicitly removing him from the C/C of such replies is a violation
>>> of his rights.
>>> 
>>> On other words, it is implicit that, if you post an e-mail, you'll be
>>> expecting actions or answers to it.
>>> 
>>> Now, if one really doesn't really want to receive e-mails from a
>>> particular sender, a block list solves it. Alternatively, a way to
>>> opt-out is welcomed.
>>> 
>>> See, this is different than adding someone to a mailing list without
>>> his consent: On such case, people receive e-mails unrelated to their
>>> preferences. For those, opt-in is the right net etiquette.
>> 
>> I agree with this.
>> 
>> But also just practically: if someone who opted out from sashiko emails
>> posts a patch and sashiko finds say a critical issue, do we expect the
>> maintainer to go and manually check each time whether the author opted
>> out and forward the review?
> 
> I expect maintainers who want to act on sashiko reviews to triage and
> verify them first before bothering authors, yes. I believe we should
> follow the first two recommendations of the Software Freedom Conservancy
> on using LLM-backed generative AI systems for FOSS contributions ([1]).
> 
> [1] https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recommendations.html

I think it makes the point of sashiko - helping maintainers - unachievable. If the point to not use
LLMs in general, let’s discuss this, not how to make each use case more complex.

It seems like [1]  expresses a very anti-LLM position in general, which I can understand and I agree 
with some of concerns. But I think it’s up to project leaders to decide if Linux in general  takes this 
position and my take so far is that the answer is not.

Thanks