On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 09:36:55 -0400 Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [ Removed all Cc's. Added Masami and linux-trace-kernel mailing list ] > > On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:09:39 +0000 > Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:08:47 +0000 > > > Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> At this moment there are 36 mailing lists who opted in for delivering > > >> email > > >> reviews over email (without counting linux-media@). In every single case > > >> it was based on maintainers requests in all cases of a disagreement > > >> between maintainers I took the conservative side. > > > > > > Oh, I think I missed this opt-in. Can you add replies to patches sent > > > to linux-trace-kernel. Currently, I've been manually looking to see if > > > a patch had a Sashiko review and sending the author a link to the > > > review and told them to please reply to the comments. > > > > > > Note, I have not had anyone tell me the are against doing so. > > > > May I ask you to raise this question with other linux-trace-kernel > > maintainers and cc me on the thread? Just to make sure everyone is > > onboard. > > Masami, > > Are you OK with having Sashiko send an email on what it finds to the > author and the mailing list? Yeah, I hope that is good to make a discussion on ML about reviewed result. Mostly those are reasonable now, so maybe we need to decide a standard format for "all-Ack". Current problem is that the Sashiko does not look back the previous discussion, so the commit or code comment should clearly state "this code is intensionally do something." A current issue is that, since Sashiko does not reflect the content of past discussions, we must explicitly state within commits or code comments, (where you have determined that a past review comment was incorrect) that the code is intentionally doing this operation and why. > > > > Also, please, let me know if sashiko should reply to the author and > > also if it should send an email if there are no issues found. > > I think if it finds no issues it should still send the email, as it > adds to the confidence of the patch. It also lets us know that the > email wasn't just dropped. > > Oh, I would think that "Failed to apply" results should *not* be sent. Yes, the fact that there is no response from Sashiko implies that the application failed. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]>
