Re: Sashiko email policy precedence

On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 1:17=E2=80=AFAM Danilo Krummrich <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> E.g. when 'passive=3Dtrue' is set and a passive list is matched with a no=
n-passive
> one the passive one won't impose its restrictive defaults (e.g.
> reply_all=3Dfalse) on the non-passive one.

The configuration I added didn't explicitly ask for `reply_all =3D
false` (just `reply_to_author =3D true`), i.e. perhaps the fact that
something is not set could be used as a "don't care" (e.g. latter
lists could override that).

Special casing "wide lists" sounds also fine.

Roman: on my side, the intention with `reply_to_author` was to make
people aware of Sashiko and hopefully be a good middle-ground default,
not to force something on everyone else.

We could also consider setting `reply_all =3D true` for rust-for-linux
-- IIUC, from what Danilo says, the current algorithm's conservative
approach would remove that setting as soon as the patch is sent to any
list where that isn't the case, right? Some people would find that
useful (a few even reply directly to the LLM's feedback), but of
course it could be seen as too annoying for others (e.g. readers
subscribing the mailing list that do not want to get bombarded with
even more emails), so that is why I took the other option, but if it
is too complex to implement other logic, I guess it is an option.

Cheers,
Miguel