> On May 16, 2026, at 12:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
There are subsystems which want email reviews to be sent to the subsystem
mailing list. In fact, all currently configured email policies came from
maintainers,
I don’t push anything based on my own preferences.
Sashiko can be configured the way you describe it or in any other way, it’s up
to corresponding
maintainers.
I agree, it’s sometimes gets tricky when a patchset is sent to multiple mailing
lists,
which policy to apply. I have some improvements in my plans, but it’s not
always possible
to say how it should be handled. It’s not fundamentally new: landing changes
touching
multiple subsystems is always harder exactly because maintainers might have
different
and sometimes conflicting views.
>
>> 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
