On 4/25/26 13:36, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 07:17:18 +0200 "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> The usefulness of the mailing list posting is that it makes it easier >>> to respond and discuss the review. Yes, what Zi did is great, but it >>> would be nice if contributors/reviewers didn't need to manually quote >>> Sashiko. >> >> I think the most important part is the contributor side. A private posting is >> sufficient for that. > > Thinking through how is this going to work out. > > - contributor sends patchset > > - akpm looks at the Sashiko scan and thinks "huh, we might be seeing > a new version soon". > > - Now what? Maybe contributor doesn't like AI, maybe contributor > thinks it was all nonsense. But I don't know this!
Right. In the common case, people will just read the output and process it in a reasonable way, like some people do today even without any notification. But there will be cases where people ignore it, I am sure. > > So I send the email "I see that Sashiko said stuff - can we expect > a new version?". Which is no improvement over what's happening now. That only happens in the scenarios where there is no further feedback from other reviewers and there won't be a new revision. That's why I am saying that the AI review on the last upstream posting before merging is the most important one from a maintainer perspective. I agree that when we are about to merge something and AI review was not addressed (no feedback from contributor), that it's a problem. > > What I would like to have is some reasonably reliable and prompt means > by which we all learn contributor's views on the Sashiko scan. Right. At the same time I don't want full AI review posted to the mailing list immediately to each and every revision of a patch set. As first step, I would be fine with having AI review send a review status in case it went into a problem to everyone as reply to each patch set, just stating whether it failed to apply, or if something was found etc. Paired with a link like you would send. > > One way to bring this about might be to set suitable reply-to headers > in the Sashiko->contributor email, along with a few words asking > contributor to let everyone know the status. Yes, that's an alternative if we were to send the full AI review to contributors. Which might make sense in addition to the AI review status (above). > > But whatever - let's not overthink this. To start somewhere, let's > send that private email, spend a few weeks evaluating then perhaps make > adjustments. Right, let's do this step by step. -- Cheers, David
