> On May 16, 2026, at 8:45 AM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 08:41:43AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: >> >>>> On May 16, 2026, at 8:20 AM, Konstantin Ryabitsev <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 05:11:28AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> What the hell is that: >>>>> >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ >>>>> >>>>> As a bot you CANNOT MAKE a Reviewer's statement of oversight. You are >>>>> not a damn human do be able to make such statement. You are a bot, a tool. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Where exactly do the rules say that ? I seem to miss that. >>>> >>>> There is a policy document about _contributions_ made by AI, but I don't >>>> see the one that says that AI agents must not provide Reviewed-by: tags. >>> >>> From my perspective, AI agents must NOT use the Reviewed-by tag for the >>> following reasons: >>> >>> - We consider this a "person-trailer" and it implies agency >>> - Adding yourself to a commit via a trailer is a *binding responsibility* >>> for >>> the change. A lot of tooling will cc the Reviewed-by addresses on follow-up >>> messages regarding code in this commit. If the address is bogus or doesn't >>> go to a developer, this is both wasteful and potentially frustrating. >> >> Hi Konstantin! >> >> The goal here is to inform maintainers that sashiko has successfully >> reviewed the patch >> and there were no findings, otherwise maintainers have to go to the web site >> and check the status. > > That's fine. > >> 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. Thanks, Roman
