From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 E2FE03FB06B for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2026 16:58:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781024315; cv=none; b=Z8CpyBjm7Yo5jU3YDtxf5B34tR1qHB7rjlnWKkU+e7wWQpEczN6zl2IuXiLe9ZhHvgKul1zGHKCV+ryMvkarcDAua6T83FR2TEW3ctubL9AMshuj5iq5g0NvzezfWHYAGiQ9NFLIDCPU++P9hMsWaVZgZ7eHeQaF6lf0E/c/dww= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781024315; c=relaxed/simple; bh=K7v1UmjVoLu56tmAI6eOncVbQxglP4jAfHS0CosXfE0=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:Cc:To:From: References:In-Reply-To; b=ht24we05+OHInlOsn9JUR6LsxH/q5l7GL5u7m9CEtPIhZa24khjJfuECko4JSpv+XOREpE1QxhzxaqYTGSOoGPok6NuyXWMkCqEM2olOYmM82skSxGmef8OlOUAYgqzsczu0xmngLXRNTuo8XIR+iV8BK5HHrOujdWtySPUTLQY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=nLoUKqEn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="nLoUKqEn" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE45C1F00893; Tue, 9 Jun 2026 16:58:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1781024314; bh=K7v1UmjVoLu56tmAI6eOncVbQxglP4jAfHS0CosXfE0=; h=Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:References:In-Reply-To; b=nLoUKqEnRNbKpIHNcsfx8WWrFe81ravMwPkrONYddc3n8CmMn5nwYTEX7WIsdCVoe p6cT82XR8P35YtWAzXjm0TRVrZPBfKLXdmkKhjpGjT6sTTZTj4IttrvPsw4dLEvJz0 /93fbcJTncmEU2n3+j7okrz6WXGZRJAsEcJje/kYprl6XMRoIvE4S5q4V77Tr3iuSN sZtDgjNXYAEiAA+SoYs/MKq7Tb391nSVwpYFo+fZ8+PYHzmW1jJYVDjlXXiFmNLzDH Tj3DSVmaU+PtsA6F5s7mTx7WLjzRTTJbYydiCVwPWuSe2HzV3hccfFhYJ2DdFcZJGf r1ovEKyLVUJWg== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: sashiko@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 18:58:32 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: Sashiko email policy precedence Cc: "Miguel Ojeda" , "Alexandre Courbot" , To: "Roman Gushchin" From: "Danilo Krummrich" References: <7ia4ecifd6i9.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> In-Reply-To: <7ia4ecifd6i9.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> On Tue Jun 9, 2026 at 6:26 PM CEST, Roman Gushchin wrote: > "Danilo Krummrich" writes: > >> On Mon Jun 1, 2026 at 11:46 AM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>> Flagging something as wide list seems rather simple [1], the tristate [= 2] would >>> work as well, but seems a bit more complicated and potentially requires >>> adjusting the existing policies. >> >> Roman, any preference on either of those or something else? > > Sorry for being late to the party. No worries, and thanks for catching up. > Yeah, the tricky balance here is that there are people who want more > sashiko reviews and there are people who are quite vocal against it. > > And I don't want to over-complicate the setup, I'm afraid it will be > just a constant source of disagreement. I think it usually works out well as is if multiple subsystems are involved= . The only case where it falls apart is with wide lists potentially spanning = all subsystems with a certain policy, which if handled like any other list, may= end up taking precedence over all subsystem lists regardless of their preferenc= e. Hence the proposal to just special case wide lists, so they can't take precedence over everything. > One option, is to switch from mailing list granularity to the > MAINTAINERS-entry granularity. Wdyt? As mentioned above, I think the main issue are wide lists, and switching to= a MAINTAINERS-entry granularity wouldn't cover that (unless I am missing something). > I don't think I have a perfect model in my head which will cover all edge > cases, tbh. The wide list case is not an edge case. Taking the R4L list aside, if we would set reply_to_author for the LKML, wh= ich does not seem entirely unreasonable, it would have the same effect, which i= s no one's reply_all setting would be honored anymore. > I personally think that reply_to_author + cc the main mailing list should= work > pretty much everywhere, but it looks like there are other opinions as wel= l. It can be quite cumbersome when people pick up a discussion based on a poin= t made by Sashiko and some people are excluded from the discussion because on= ly the mailing list and specific people are statically Cc'd. People that were Cc'd explicitly on a patch series usually don't expect to = have to switch to the mailing list to capture every discussion.