From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev <mricon@kernel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
sashiko-bot@kernel.org, sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev,
sashiko@lists.linux.dev,
Linux Kernel Workflows <workflows@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kfree@google.com
Subject: Re: Stop false review statements
Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 17:45:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2026051631-trolling-juggling-da1c@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D659E814-069C-439A-B816-1BC383F38E1F@linux.dev>
On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 08:41:43AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 2026, at 8:20 AM, Konstantin Ryabitsev <mricon@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 05:11:28AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> What the hell is that:
> >>>
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260515190707.033BDC2BCB0@smtp.kernel.org/
> >>>
> >>> As a bot you CANNOT MAKE a Reviewer's statement of oversight. You are
> >>> not a damn human do be able to make such statement. You are a bot, a tool.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Where exactly do the rules say that ? I seem to miss that.
> >>
> >> There is a policy document about _contributions_ made by AI, but I don't
> >> see the one that says that AI agents must not provide Reviewed-by: tags.
> >
> > From my perspective, AI agents must NOT use the Reviewed-by tag for the
> > following reasons:
> >
> > - We consider this a "person-trailer" and it implies agency
> > - Adding yourself to a commit via a trailer is a *binding responsibility* for
> > the change. A lot of tooling will cc the Reviewed-by addresses on follow-up
> > messages regarding code in this commit. If the address is bogus or doesn't
> > go to a developer, this is both wasteful and potentially frustrating.
>
> Hi Konstantin!
>
> The goal here is to inform maintainers that sashiko has successfully reviewed the patch
> and there were no findings, otherwise maintainers have to go to the web site and check the status.
That's fine.
> I’m not attached to any specific form of it, I thought Reviewed-by is the most obvious form.
> And we use Reported-by: tags with various tooling for years.
Reported-by: shows the existance of a problem that some tool found, a
subtle difference here.
> What do you think is the best form?
>
> I’ll pause sending reviewed-by tags until we have a discussion and agreement here.
Just say it in some other text form, that our tools will not pick up.
Like:
Tool XXXX reports that all is good:
https://....
or something like that?
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-16 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-16 8:05 Stop false review statements Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 12:11 ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 12:16 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 12:23 ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 12:29 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 13:24 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-05-16 13:45 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 21:10 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2026-05-16 15:20 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2026-05-16 15:36 ` Greg KH
2026-05-16 15:41 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 15:45 ` Greg KH [this message]
2026-05-16 15:49 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 18:28 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-05-16 21:29 ` Derek Barbosa
2026-05-16 21:33 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 21:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 18:28 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 18:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 19:00 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 19:13 ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 19:25 ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 19:31 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 19:15 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 20:41 ` Theodore Tso
2026-05-16 22:32 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
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=2026051631-trolling-juggling-da1c@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kfree@google.com \
--cc=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=mricon@kernel.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=sashiko@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=workflows@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