From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 46B3827A92D for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:59:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784077160; cv=none; b=Wk+NMjuEgJERFd4GcQi6XNZaijKBnFSEEbkRXuvm1xyyEGTuZXfGvDLLb2uHMrAg0Tr8QJ9R+nGx4fmMZeZY08hai72LJRgbyskkkRd45gYA0L/VwQgqy4c8TJVyrsliMl92VYU46DVR50X6Hg8DukXInfM8cgICcSLRCjZkKc0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784077160; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aCX0+CU46y6a32uCiBYa5efv5AprKSOP+I14jS+zYWA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=QjNZR/UmxItaZ9ZQlVx0ujdYP3DHZtnsujByStVAKvNZGOyVr7WbTw7aB9eN/ikPHeIoQXEZRRMOzAqv3KNai+Sl5WyrNmAWnSEgdRsrvlli9asM1Fkuv2h1fAP/tg4hq+PpMTATSzJMX7KONlnzKsPU/SoJ76NbCJyt1DsHvPI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=CFJ5cE8E; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="CFJ5cE8E" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25CB1104C; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:16 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1784077096; bh=aCX0+CU46y6a32uCiBYa5efv5AprKSOP+I14jS+zYWA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CFJ5cE8EDntWHr4ULuXSi4ZaI3mdJOmUJccNI5fnO5wGSeT91ro8OU+EjcaDjuI8/ +ErAeyET3TP+PcIH+UblecdpIPFi+x/XwrZXa6WprBm1ZzaGBRFAQSDTOLY/i4pc5y 5gWXY8xyagBJUNf+TZyd/a5VX6z6G8B9HwIAWAUk= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 03:59:09 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Derek Barbosa , Matthieu Baerts , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Jason Gunthorpe , Steven Rostedt , users@kernel.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Stephen Finucane Subject: Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko? Message-ID: <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260604085201.177ad537@foz.lan> <20260607195656.02788791@foz.lan> <20260710074528.5a6e4457@foz.lan> <20260710083845.23c753ca@foz.lan> <87wlv2jq4t.fsf@linux.dev> <20260713095538.3d5e86f1@foz.lan> <20260713094120.GD1127719@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260713220427.582b28bf@foz.lan> <7ia4mrvtrxjl.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7ia4mrvtrxjl.fsf@castle.c.googlers.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