From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-184.mta0.migadu.com (out-184.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.184]) (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 CD36833C51D for ; Sat, 16 May 2026 15:42:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.184 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778946131; cv=none; b=Bih176p9HRzAATfTEcArOXcmaYCq39XgKOkDf5Zm7DcOVgdAp+crMZFI4ELqRfoCX2/lHBr5g0fVxDGHug4lC64Rc/3mFJLJQ+6em2mMSqnHHyS5wgTyGTkbja1Q1pSc0JF5ZSyCzZAX8KSLq8nOY/ETBEgoDhc/zofIDK56G/c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778946131; c=relaxed/simple; bh=v3RftEOEQ0Z0EimNsUKTIGiDBZhBWYSoHc1wI9KQV2U=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=FMx/aEVclxVPr209eSO4oq6C4ejBM2BRRPDRT2Znpwq9BPaNY0p4gdEwt3SGMo59bCOhTa12EgR0rMkvolkK0h45vtZ1bY41gs1G5t9cqlt4z9F+Rw4phfZH/BtD/o1ahSoYiAhabpaAzCoY9XvSRJqdXIHsJa7U78XxYUAiiTY= 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=hFc6SKnI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.184 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="hFc6SKnI" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1778946117; 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=XH9syRm46i8Qb1VP/1p0ztBqeIBZ8qFG0WVI2+gyvqE=; b=hFc6SKnIuKX1IkGyCyjU/HNL1sZuQDkq20+Cs89Je5w5nQATrOYLuzSCv6zdMIV98Gm9Z3 KIidC2mIwuo4id0sVfEbb/1acAdl868YOqMOFvxe1oFkje2sB6VXpLT0nmnNuewiUSBlGt boJkuO/z2u8jkJRGskJ5g42s132wah8= 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: <20260516-upbeat-tody-of-feminism-4ab00a@lemur> Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 08:41:43 -0700 Cc: Guenter Roeck , Krzysztof Kozlowski , 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: References: <20260516-upbeat-tody-of-feminism-4ab00a@lemur> To: Konstantin Ryabitsev X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT > On May 16, 2026, at 8:20=E2=80=AFAM, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn 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: >>>=20 >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260515190707.033BDC2BCB0@smtp.kernel.org/ >>>=20 >>> 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 too= l. >>>=20 >>=20 >> Where exactly do the rules say that ? I seem to miss that. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > =46rom my perspective, AI agents must NOT use the Reviewed-by tag for the > following reasons: >=20 > - We consider this a "person-trailer" and it implies agency > - Adding yourself to a commit via a trailer is a *binding responsibility* f= or > 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 reviewe= d the patch and there were no findings, otherwise maintainers have to go to the web site= and check the status. I=E2=80=99m not attached to any specific form of it, I thought Reviewed-by i= s the most obvious form.=20 And we use Reported-by: tags with various tooling for years. What do you think is the best form? I=E2=80=99ll pause sending reviewed-by tags until we have a discussion and a= greement here. Thanks=