From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 DF204340DB9 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 21:03:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773781432; cv=none; b=SE8cCfhx503fLeb1BnYZLGx8jYraMO/evFbi7FPE4n8rCXr6jZ+Tujg9JLotty/4YAncToAePDMlWi4M35jLbnPo7MDQCNz4Va+8RT7KcWiL6thhdJErmrqDSK21N9A121ZYBLZtslWTn1wAq/b2rXgWbmZ0bB2dsVLgruWjPuM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773781432; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CI7DY23dRmkVZjgDjdkI8Mm70KCHhkjBjIL8yo17zEs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BDpPUiiyD//gWjC2FrKnM0GG0Y4R286AbzYVMwyPkJsnCjCxiPUBR7K5pe3mW3Vd39h3NJp3Yclce3ycm9i1CIRvVCV8l9tuhNlXZ3ZOfOpvhVgCqZO162nqpIhwk3Put/FcQbJAJk4MOoV80O/NvDxQGzS9uBcJVcXKVMmEb8s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=KS15CpKM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="KS15CpKM" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) id 85C66C4CEF7; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 21:03:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4474FC19425; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 21:03:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1773781432; bh=CI7DY23dRmkVZjgDjdkI8Mm70KCHhkjBjIL8yo17zEs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KS15CpKMNu7CnzU+U/dWL6QNNfd5EI7KYcq1zbfGEufcNWmnRZz85C8yonJIVWVl9 4pmwY4x+KYn088UrGw2NayNrfNwLDA7gYcQYHDX68Bd8vh1YN0HP+7PHCRI5avrhjB OUl/LiB6z/C/+Vo31mUBARfEtlEgY/o6EBMTidCV5S1Xm5e7GEu1hxMhCTQL6w+PPz xzSiiLtQxCUao2lKlqzwVXCOMOFv5jireteAeEVDZHU8Ff/pYi6hG+xOzM5z3Um3HK MEapLPJ82F8A/pvzsQSQjcz7LNQhlaf5aYYWEMYjALlN6psd3srN6r8Mgh2xrNLSs1 O7Iw+z5ZNVK7A== Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 17:03:51 -0400 From: Konstantin Ryabitsev To: Mark Brown Cc: tools@kernel.org Subject: Re: Sorting for applied and thanked reviews Message-ID: <20260317-enigmatic-acrid-corgi-e9bee9@lemur> References: <4547f513-9e28-4f5c-93d1-823e70b110fc@sirena.org.uk> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.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: <4547f513-9e28-4f5c-93d1-823e70b110fc@sirena.org.uk> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 07:22:03PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > Currently it looks like in progress, applied and thanked reviews are all > sorted together (by activity I think?), with reviews that are snoozed or > waiting for new versions sorted after them. This seems a bit > surprising, I'd expect at least the thanked reviews to be sorted even > further down the list than those that are in progress but waiting for > something. We currently split all your tracked series into "action required" ones at the top and "action not required" ones at the bottom, which is why all your snoozed and waiting series are below everything else. Within these two sections, the series are sorted by when they were last added to your tracking, not by most recent activity. I used to sort them by latest activity but I hated that they jump around -- if you have 5 series that you're working on throughout the day, you benefit from visual memory if they all sit in one spot. I was expecting that "thanked" series would be prime candidates for archiving, which is why they are kept in "action required". However, it's an easy change to add them into "no action required". We can instead differentiate this into: active: - new - reviewing action required: - replied - accepted - thanked inactive: - snoozed - waiting Does that work, and how would you sort these? -- KR