On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 1:53 PM Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 10:45:54AM -0600, James Hilliard wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 3:33 AM Andy Shevchenko > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2026 at 04:11:08PM -0600, James Hilliard wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2026 at 2:44 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2026 at 02:25:46PM -0600, James Hilliard wrote: > > ... > > > > > > Some people might want to test the stuff. And sending too often you > > > > > actually > > > > > will get the opposite results, people will be tired to even start > > > > > reviewing > > > > > and/or testing your code as it's changed way too quickly. > > > > > > > > My thought process was that people wouldn't want to be testing code that > > > > had known bugs flagged in Sashiko reviews. > > > > > > Sashiko reviews are not visible in my or any other mailbox. To see them I > > > have > > > to go to some URL and so on, meaning to waste time to see why on the > > > earth the > > > new version has been sent. > > > > Maybe the Sashiko reviews are getting caught in spam filtering or something? > > They are showing up for me and on the mailing list[0] so I'm a bit confused > > why > > you aren't seeing them. You shouldn't have to go to the web interface[1] to > > look > > up the reviews. > > > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > > [1] https://sashiko.dev/ > > > > > It's better before addressing Sashiko comments, > > > reply to all people involved and to Sashiko's original email, so it will > > > be > > > visible in the previous version why you issued (actually about to issue) > > > the > > > next version. > > > > Hmm, maybe it makes sense to enable recipients in the reply_to config[2]? > > It's up to the list owners / subsystem maintainers. > > > [2] > > https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/blob/v.0.6.3/projects/linux/mailing_lists.toml#L290 > > > > > And before even issuing it, wait for a while, people might > > > disagree with Sashiko judgement or your replies on how to address that. > > > > I was assuming everyone was seeing the Sashiko reviews getting posted to > > the mailing list already. The are ending up in lore so unless someone isn't > > subscribed to the list I'm not sure why they wouldn't be seeing those > > reviews > > already. > > I assume you already answered your Q. mailing list in this sense doesn't mean > recipients. I think it simply goes to the mailing list without forwarding.
Do we want those reviews going to recipients as well as the mailing list? > > You can ask at helpdesk@ how this is configured on the kernel.org side. > > > > TL;DR: this mailing list is *not* a playground with you and Sashiko, the > > > whole > > > community is behind it. > > > > > > Settle down first > > > > > with something, put on the cover letter the answer why not all > > > > > Sashiko's > > > > > comments are being addressed (for example, due to amount of patches > > > > > or the > > > > > series being focused on a certain issue). > > > > > > > > So, in general I've been always attempting to resolve known Sashiko > > > > issues > > > > in every subsequent re-spin, so that would be a bit tricky since I > > > > wouldn't be > > > > aware of the Sashiko issues until after the series has already been > > > > sent. > > > > > > > > Usually the subsequent issues that get flagged are new issues only > > > > discovered > > > > after each new re-spin. > > > > > > > > I do have a bunch of UART/DMA related patches that don't have flagged > > > > Sashiko > > > > issues so it probably makes sense to try and review those first while > > > > the larger > > > > series that have Sashiko flagged issues are still stabilizing. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > [0] https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/389 > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > >
