public inbox for rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Alexandre Courbot" <acourbot@nvidia.com>
To: <lyude@redhat.com>
Cc: <rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Maybe make Sashiko emails opt-in please?
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 10:48:58 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DI05ND6E449C.3TZEG1R8O7N72@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2476c3b3f06bde0c376e70a3ca30e91f54b544fd.camel@redhat.com>

On Thu Apr 23, 2026 at 10:10 AM JST, lyude wrote:
> Hi! I was told on the github for sashiko that I should probably bring
> this issue up here. (source:
> https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/112 )
>
> I sent two patch series to the rust-for-linux mailing list last night,
> and was a bit surprised to see that all of a sudden I am getting
> Sashiko emails on my patches without having asked for them. Which
> brings me to say - I really think this is a tool that needs to remain
> opt-in. Or at the very least it needs an opt-out that at least silences
> it trying to respond to a specific person's patches both directly and
> via the mailing list.
>
> I'm going to keep it short because I am really trying to avoid this
> turning into a conversation about how I could benefit from these tools,
> how useful people think they are for themselves, etc. I personally
> don't find myself being more productive with these tools, primarily
> because of the significant number of false-positives and the overhead
> involved in filtering those by hand. I'm concerned that if these tools
> are suddenly allowed to respond to people's patches publicly on the
> mailing list, that it moves the responsibility for validating its
> output away from the person using the tool, to the person submitting
> the work - regardless of whether it's helping them fix real issues.
>
> Keep in mind, I do want to be clear I think this is different from when
> people use these tools on their own and bring that feedback up on the
> mailing list. In that case you've taken the responsibility to actually
> verify the validity (or at least the likely validity) of the issues the
> AI pointed out. I certainly would have no issue with that and
> appreciate the issue being brought up. I know a number of my coworkers
> do this, and I've honestly not had any issues with it.
>
> That's all, I'd love if this was opt-in - and not enabled for the
> entire mailing list. Thank you.

I agree that this kind of tool should be opt-in. Maybe we can make it
such as Sachiko reviews are only sent to the author of a patch if they
also Cc'd some sachiko@ address that acts as an opt-in?

Sachiko can still do reviews and post them on its web interface even
without it, but the author would not be explicitly notified in that
case.

      reply	other threads:[~2026-04-23  1:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-23  1:10 Maybe make Sashiko emails opt-in please? lyude
2026-04-23  1:48 ` Alexandre Courbot [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=DI05ND6E449C.3TZEG1R8O7N72@nvidia.com \
    --to=acourbot@nvidia.com \
    --cc=lyude@redhat.com \
    --cc=rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox