Re: Stop false review statements

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