On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 11:01:35AM +0530, Neha Malcom Francis wrote: > On 2026-05-12 11:44:38-06:00, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 03:14:49PM +0530, Neha Malcom Francis wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 05 May 2026 18:36:24 +0200, Ernest Van Hoecke > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Neha Malcom Francis <[email protected]> > > > > Out of genuine curiosity, the Message-ID here implies "b4 review" was > > used here. Is that correct? And how useful did you find it for this > > case? Thanks. > > Yes correct. I've recent started using b4 review to help me get on track with > upstream reviews. Personally it's been quite helpful. I can track only the > patches I'm reviewing, and quickly give A-bys or R-bys and look at followups. > And you can get checkpatch checks done instantly. So all in all, I will be > continuing to use this further. I'm trying to get used to using neomutt as > well > so that I use both in my workflow since you can integrate b4 review with > neomutt > as well.
Thank you for the feedback. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
