Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko?

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]>