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 1E9323CD8C8 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2026 16:47:11 +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=1773852432; cv=none; b=HXqjofSvJL8fcsZfoZtnyN/mP8lwMe53VeTViVzirt7ZqKeDZVwfCGoYhzBU36ot/+yPfI3idTcCsXUbnLkBd4IgpRC3AleBP4mlY4f59RfleDTIzF0cc3hzh6/lVJj1QeUmqu9oYvGRczryBT2t1TyGpVdoiCpPlzk0M3vsfyE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773852432; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uw/hkCaJc7RjqK9L7QlX6tKqg26UKi/oOmHlQhIYTg0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=miIcAQ04mqD4GANtYc27LNcQQEvmFV+kE8Blxq0VIe/QQe/R557eOd2I7PjNbnK1wLZ5u56i9bc+v2sZjG+B8o8UtlinTc/rppEFOhd4kJ4TCi52CdckBX1opPgizyWTKAvGZAY66R615l2Kp6AgaIGP6ml91/4qXDW3Ke5oWoM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=Ds1qkUYR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="Ds1qkUYR" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) id C8B4BC19421; Wed, 18 Mar 2026 16:47:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BADEC2BCAF; Wed, 18 Mar 2026 16:47:10 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 smtp.kernel.org 6BADEC2BCAF Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 82A9540423 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1773852428; bh=7wRxzMTiFj3nDARBpZlwcAJsGCZpSA5pWOOhdsJkzIw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Ds1qkUYRGLk5+iGohAlnP3DWYTRg0nUEIXGsl9zRfH2BOUmjfAyleWEvLGNgInAOX v0RXTHkMYgSR9XBT5iA8YgV4XQFyj5L5nmXed+jQCwRT75+rJb8pLJaMztst8sdwkf 0lbhzgZJ3CGBjDkIs7ZKxN8gE5NGoNfM8GHWokMJVJ7gUdDRV5EfqPEhcSRlU7b3cC 7X/6nX6VuPBMXMQ3k5WIP1I1CtIgKnt8sFG7W0yDjPgFt0AeDRu6LavVhv7YasCkmw YWT6FXixWspa8VUkaoRV76nDFLdiy2X4DxbNBrDaC9ugoKF85fmeVEETjVqkz9tz8v bLsJAgiqtRzRQ== Received: from localhost (c-71-229-227-126.hsd1.co.comcast.net [71.229.227.126]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82A9540423; Wed, 18 Mar 2026 16:47:08 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: users@kernel.org, tools@kernel.org Subject: Re: b4 review available in master In-Reply-To: <20260317-majestic-efficient-raptor-59f17a@lemur> References: <20260227-imported-aromatic-guppy-ad3dca@lemur> <87tsuffj7h.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <87h5qffikk.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <20260316-quizzical-raccoon-of-refinement-d88fdb@lemur> <87qzpieeb5.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <20260317-starling-of-delightful-exercise-3472ce@lemur> <20260317-optimistic-impartial-kudu-deefac@lemur> <87o6km86zm.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <20260317-crazy-belligerent-llama-a14ba6@lemur> <20260317-majestic-efficient-raptor-59f17a@lemur> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 10:47:07 -0600 Message-ID: <87se9x5blg.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Konstantin Ryabitsev writes: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 06:39:54PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: >> > So it's still behaving a bit strangely, at least that's how it seems to >> > me. I tried adding comments to a patch, doing my usual trick of >> > trimming out stuff that is being skipped over. >> >> You don't need to do that. Just find the stuff you want commenting on. We'll >> take care of the rest! :) >> >> But, I'm able to reproduce what you're seeing -- trimming content doesn't do >> the right thing. Let me see if I can make this a lot more relaxed. > > The current master should be a lot more forgiving when parsing your comments. > > However, I am now curious to hear your feedback. The idea with the review app > is that you are not really sending an email, you're adding comments to code > and adding review trailers. The app will render and send that out for you, > trimming and formatting things nicely so you don't have to do it on your own > (I've noticed that many maintainers don't bother anyway -- there are emails > with a terse comment at the top and then a huge quoted bottom that is only > followed by their sig. This is just me, of course ... and I was very much experimenting with it as an alternative to my usual "do it in email" approach. So one can definitely argue that I was simply holding it wrong. If, though, the intent is that one inserts comments and leaves the patch text alone, I think that the interface *really* needs to not let you mess with the stuff you're not supposed to change. If one were to implement this as an Emacs mode, that sort of constraint could be implemented fairly easily. If you're throwing somebody into an arbitrary editor, it's going to be rather harder. I tend to be pretty careful about which text I trim when composing replies. It's pretty helpful to, for example, be able to do something like: > something from the patch Here you're doing X... [...] > something rather further down Here instead it's expecting Y, WTF? ...so I would be less than fully pleased with an interface that prevents that. But perhaps I'm a dinosaur who just isn't using the tool correctly. > Is this rife for creating confusion? Will maintainers be fighting with this > and growing grumpy because it's not exactly like their email client? Some surely will, see above. But that doesn't necessarily mean you're not creating a better workflow in the long run. I think we need to play with a lot of ideas, and I'm really glad you're doing that. Thanks, jon