On 16/05/2026 14:23, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 5/16/26 05:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 16/05/2026 14:11, 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/[email protected]/ >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> Quotes from the existing policy: >> >> 1. "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:" >> >> Tool cannot use first person "I". Tool cannot "state that". >> >> 2. "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an >> appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious" >> >> Tool cannot make a statement of opinion. >> >> 3. "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a >> Reviewed-by". >> >> Tool is not a reviewer as a person, thus above does not grant the tool >> permission to offer a tag. >> > > I'd like to see that explicitly spelled out. Until then it is your opinion.
It is not an opinion. It is written. I gave you quotes. Do you want to spell the rules of English language? That tool is not a person? Shall I send the patch like: Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by. +In English "reviewer" is a person [1]. + [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reviewer Seriously, you expect to document the English language? > >>> >>>> Stop faking tags. >>>> >>>> And really, considering how many false positives Sashiko produces, how >>>> poor review comments it gives, how many misleading comments, it's >>>> unacceptable to me to consider that a review. >>>> >>>> Amount of useless noise Sashiko produces already changed my mind how >>>> useful that tool is. >>> >>> We seem to have completely different experiences. Yes, it does produce >>> false positives, just like humans do. However, I have seen it find many >>> real bugs, including many in patches which already had Reviewed-by: tags >>> from (presumably) human reviewers. >> >> Of course it finds bugs. But it also produces - roughly - 80-90% false >> positives, completely useless. >> > > Really ? The ones I have seen are - roughly, to use the same term - 80-90% > true positives. Maybe you should explicitly ask for no Sashiko reviews in > your scope of responsibility. I already sent a patch to stop receiving all these emails and I stopped reading them completely, when fetched via b4 for review in mutt workflow. But this is not the point. Our docs clearly state what Reviewed-by means, regardless of the quality of the actual review. Poor quality is just another reason, less important, though. Best regards, Krzysztof
