On 16/05/2026 20:56, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > >> On May 16, 2026, at 11:29 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 16/05/2026 17:49, Roman Gushchin wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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? >>> >>> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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’s opt-in on per-subsystem basis, as well as all other email-related > features. > I do rely on corresponding maintainers to decide if they want it or not.
The trouble is that subsystem is mailing list, thus I still got all of them via b4, which is used to get the discussion. Send them only to the maintainer, for example. Or maintainer + authors. Basically the same as LKP is doing. > If you’re saying that it should not send any non-personal emails in general, > I disagree here, > but happy to have a discussion, assuming it’s polite and constructive. I meant it should not be send to people who did not request that. Opt-in should be explicit and no mailing lists must be Cced (because then it is sending to everyone). > > The reason why I disagree is simple: there are maintainers/subsystems who > like Sashiko’s reviews > and before introducing the email interface they had to manually send links > to Sashiko’s reviews > as replies to proposed patches. I’ve been explicitly asked to add an ability > to send out > emails with reviews. Sure, I agree with the need for use-case. Best regards, Krzysztof
