Maintainer workflows discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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