From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-181.mta1.migadu.com (out-181.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.181]) (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 463A5345CB2 for ; Sat, 16 May 2026 18:57:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.181 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778957837; cv=none; b=G9sK+A4Wrmz1F8gP4VqNq9NkEhEL1g2qyWbPOYlXEVcN2Lg2fBNd4sYx6lLXfWXWp/n6rhg97IhI7KtDVbVHskYLWXE6qc6d+Zvbbza2Z6qlnhlswrUp4OebrBTubK13mHoamaD07ySVWBsk2HtpJ3h9URN6B2FtgV6ghiIxfXc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778957837; c=relaxed/simple; bh=of8TX82GAchL6eHU8AfWJKqFRWVZ0hb2HwjwXfE+9xY=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=ObgxSMhhTp6gcSV1OJ3TRFqL1a4I8gjJVZ9qy5dE4jGFRPAaAQSDps+7U4uA/cJZQ10zLllo3Io7NMjiYbo1JEmcs5ctMUKeqildSE6u+xH4t3CZxh81w7sIhRiga/1u0bDwoBVYqwvMdKvfCXiLiL9p/NAwpeOqGFrMugI5OH8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=pDetYoJZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.181 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="pDetYoJZ" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1778957824; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FwKxoY0mz0ptZPDYXqLwrww/3nX4SlEEJE/N2RkvrQU=; b=pDetYoJZruA5D8Ps7MplFOVD3y+x45SRS/xDU+bU85E8rfWxHPGtr9wGRgjNhjAyNsYQ1o MYDvE+qWm5bKmANE/xIESyOHL5gMpG1XqqAcB1iTd19DAjsCuie8/AI/mNZl9+C4yeLkHy b4fkLbborb+M/KVwLZ+tlWZCg6k1Oj4= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: Stop false review statements X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Roman Gushchin In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 11:56:46 -0700 Cc: Greg KH , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Guenter Roeck , sashiko-bot@kernel.org, sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev, sashiko@lists.linux.dev, Linux Kernel Workflows , Linux Kernel Mailing List , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kfree@google.com Message-Id: <70C5331E-06F1-48D5-A6BA-0CD130B69A45@linux.dev> References: To: Krzysztof Kozlowski X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT > On May 16, 2026, at 11:29=E2=80=AFAM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn 16/05/2026 17:49, Roman Gushchin wrote: >>>=20 >>>> I=E2=80=99m 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. >>>=20 >>> Reported-by: shows the existance of a problem that some tool found, a >>> subtle difference here. >>>=20 >>>> What do you think is the best form? >>>>=20 >>>> I=E2=80=99ll pause sending reviewed-by tags until we have a discussion a= nd agreement here. >>>=20 >>> Just say it in some other text form, that our tools will not pick up. >>> Like: >>> Tool XXXX reports that all is good: >>> https://.... >>>=20 >>> or something like that? >>=20 >> Sure, works for me. > Roman, > Before implementing such changes, send a RFC or just ask a few folks for > opinions. We do use the tool, among other tools, so we will gladly > provide a feedback. >=20 > Sashiko should in general not send such emails when not asked for. Why? > Because we have also other bots, like LKP, KernelCI, and imagine how > maintainer's mailbox will look like. >=20 > LKP allows opt-in for your own repo, which for example I am using, so I > get confirmation of the success. But people are not receiving them. I > cannot imagine all the people getting these LKP-successfully-built > emails on every email. It=E2=80=99s opt-in on per-subsystem basis, as well as all other email-relat= ed features. I do rely on corresponding maintainers to decide if they want it or not. Even in the case which you was so unhappy about, I asked Guenter prior=20 to enabling it for hwmon. If you=E2=80=99re saying that it should not send any non-personal emails in g= eneral, I disagree here, but happy to have a discussion, assuming it=E2=80=99s polite and constructiv= e. The reason why I disagree is simple: there are maintainers/subsystems who li= ke Sashiko=E2=80=99s reviews=20 and before introducing the email interface they had to manually send links t= o Sashiko=E2=80=99s reviews as replies to proposed patches. I=E2=80=99ve been explicitly asked to add an= ability to send out emails with reviews. Thanks