On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 11:36 AM David Hildenbrand (Arm) <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/24/26 16:31, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 16:20:55 +0200 "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 4/24/26 16:15, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Yep. I'd be OK with an automatic reply-to-all. Maybe some won't like > >>> that. > >>> > >>> An alternative I've discussed with Roman is an automated > >>> reply-to-author with a cc to a dedicated list (we could use mm-commits > >>> for now). > >>> > >>> Preferences? > >> > >> Reply-to-author would likely be better as a first step. > > > > Why do you think so? > > The most important part for me is that authors are aware of the reports. > > Sending them as a mail forces people to publicly reply to the feedback, and at > this point in time, I am not convinced that that is the right approach.
But I imagine it's useful for reviewers to see Sashiko's feedback as well (without having to go look on the website). It's possible that Sashiko is right but the author isn't convinced, so getting more eyes on the feedback would help. If Sashiko is wrong, it's still useful for more people to see it and point it out, instead of Sashiko privately misguiding the author, especially that reviewers are probably more likely to tell if Sashiko is right or wrong. I understand the fear of too much noise, but I think it's easy to ignore Sashiko if we want to. It's also a good exercise to spell out why Sashiko is wrong (e.g. improve changelogs/comments to document assumptions more obviously). We can always tune it down later if we think it's too much, right?
