On Sat, 16 May 2026 08:49:39 -0700 Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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: [...] > >> 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. Yes, this will be helpful. I also think notifying review failures (usually due to patch applying failure) or general review results summary for every case (maybe opt-in?) would also be helpful. > > > > 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. +1. I was also feeling Reviewed-by: is at least controversial. Thanks, SJ [...]
