Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko?

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

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

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart