RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec at lists.infradead.org

[Pratyush Yadav]

On Wed, Sep 02 2026, Roman Gushchin wrote:

>> On Sep 2, 2026, at 10:59 AM, David Matlack <dmatlack at google.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 2:18 AM Pratyush Yadav <pratyush at kernel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> +Cc Roman because I am complaining about Sashiko ;-)
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Sep 02 2026, Baoquan He wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 09/02/26 at 11:04am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>> Hi Baoquan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 01:52:51PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
[...]
>>> This is a side topic, but if we only Cc the list then Sashiko won't Cc
>>> the other people in the thread, like the usual "reply to all" every mail
>>> clients does. It will _only_ Cc the list. See [0] for example.
>>> 
>>> I don't think that is a good idea, because Sashiko might complain about
>>> something, and then the patch author can reply to the complaint. People
>>> who are not subscribed to the list will neither see Sashiko's complaint
>>> nor the author's response. So they lose a useful part of the patch
>>> review process.
>>> 
>>> I am one of those people. I don't subscribe to any mailing lists and
>>> instead use lei [1] to fetch them. I treat my inbox as the primary
>>> stream of patches, and then glance at the lists every now and then. If I
>>> get some patches in my inbox but then I don't get any of the follow-ups
>>> from the author to Sashiko, that's annoying. Sure, I might see them on
>>> the list later, but it is still annoying.
>
> It feels like there are two types of people: some know how to use
> email filters and some don’t. Unfortunately, the latter group is often
> very vocal about what they don’t want to see on mailing lists. I can
> easily see the problem with too much ai-generated noise (and useful
> information as well), so no complaints from me, just saying that there
> is a reason sashiko is fairly conservative here.
>
>>> 
>>> And of course, there might be patches that touch multiple subsystems and
>>> maintainers of that subsystem might not subscribe to or track kexec@ at
>>> all. So they will entirely miss the conversation.
>>> 
>>> If Sashiko is useful enough to send replies on the list, then I think it
>>> is useful enough to reply to everyone.
>> 
>> It looks like this can be configured:
>> 
>> - reply_all=true will have Sashiko reply to everyone on the To/Cc line.
>> - cc_individuals=true will have Sashiko include all inidividuals from the
>>   To/Cc line of the original patch.
>> 
>>> 
>>> IIRC some people have complained in the past about automatically getting
>>> replies from Sashiko so maybe that is why this behaviour exists? Roman,
>>> is that correct? Is there any appetite yet to change that behaviour?
>
> Can you, please, describe, what behavior do you want?

Sorry for the late reply.

The behaviour is already an option that can be configured
(reply_all=true), I just wasn't aware that was an option. So I don't
think any change is needed.

IMO this should be the default but I can see why you might not want to
do it just yet.

>
>>> 
>>> Or could we perhaps have an unsubscribe mechanism where people who don't
>>> want to see anything from Sashiko can unsubscribe themselves and Sashiko
>>> will skip them when replying?
>
> This is the territory I don’t really want to go, honestly. Not a
> dealbreaker if there is a very strong reason to implement it, but I
> don’t think we have similar lists for other tools like syzbot or the
> build verifier. I feel it’s more about the politics around ai then a
> real technical reason (it’s like super trivial to drop emails from a
> specific sender), so I’d avoid this if possible.

Yeah, fair enough.

[...]

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav