From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-176.mta1.migadu.com (out-176.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.176]) (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 80ACD248F72 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:01:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.176 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784080881; cv=none; b=pmE1El4ReMJhyMeGN1/QqWlEM/MTtQBCJLtdsjKbkTymVWSM27MI+e0myz0HL73vwnjas4whxPPGwxzbJKQGqk74ptYb+izxjMM6S8sueL1cw6QZtBbyg/P9SK9C3XvUKx0YykypM43teraZDfCYx37L2BGm5VZBNVdm6qKrX34= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784080881; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LuY9Woj7vg6OFzyEQ/cvcRhhFIwWWxux59p5kDq/WGQ=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=lHQtgTMQyok6dL9Ny32aNlAhj6bcBCx30S25gLxuZ4UxwcTV5IEnP4pesxVioWcIgFLIilMcz345VnUZJLLEmXxrst60SeSbohk2MSImob7qzxNnQI+jhDzPDK9mAn8P41TgU0FikHhPhsHXK15HAPz3L0KmFo0wU3XAx2QbQdM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=OmO6nFT/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.176 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="OmO6nFT/" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1784080876; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=B6Tcdlk2KlrDTQ1RDFsVKwRtZ+KLI5HKlmjbyt9hjoA=; b=OmO6nFT/wFryomjx/ULZbtTgOvz2/pQJZ7nbD75FYLsn4pqtfcOFff3TuMyKODrLZvGz+d nhODDfSh79VqJXlYZSVTaeX3tLlhJq3Dlbwwg0Y8Y5KlfeYWVXP+VwPk/88ug2ooh7N9On M7a4Zb1Sayh0vNPriwbTfZcIdpC06zo= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko? X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Roman Gushchin In-Reply-To: <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 19:00:54 -0700 Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Derek Barbosa , Matthieu Baerts , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Jason Gunthorpe , Steven Rostedt , users@kernel.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Stephen Finucane Message-Id: <4928C919-7999-4E76-ADCB-F8643FED105B@linux.dev> References: <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> To: Laurent Pinchart X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT > On Jul 14, 2026, at 5:59=E2=80=AFPM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn 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 cont= rol >>>>>>> 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 patc= hes >>>>>>> to be tested by unit tests". =20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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. =20= >>>>>=20 >>>>> I don't know where that one comes from. >>>>>=20 >>>>> What happened to this other "most basic rule" that subscription to >>>>> services that deliver e-mails should be opt-in ? >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> On other words, it is implicit that, if you post an e-mail, you'll be >>> expecting actions or answers to it. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> I agree with this. >>=20 >> 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? >=20 > 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]). >=20 > [1] https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recommen= dations.html I think it makes the point of sashiko - helping maintainers - unachievable. I= f the point to not use LLMs in general, let=E2=80=99s discuss this, not how to make each use case m= ore complex. It seems like [1] expresses a very anti-LLM position in general, which I ca= n understand and I agree=20 with some of concerns. But I think it=E2=80=99s up to project leaders to dec= ide if Linux in general takes this=20 position and my take so far is that the answer is not. Thanks=