On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 08:41:43AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 2026, at 8:20 AM, Konstantin Ryabitsev <[email protected]> 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/[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.
> >
> > 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
