On Wed, 13 May 2026, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 10:17:51AM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 9:13 AM Joe Lawrence <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello live-patching maintainers, > > > > > > I've noticed several references to the Sashiko (https://sashiko.dev/) > > > kernel review bot on this list and was wondering if there is interest in > > > adding live-patching to the mailing lists Sashiko tracks. > > > > I think it is a great idea. AFAICT, these bots add a lot of values in the > > code reviews. > > +1 > > > > Integration appears straightforward: we can submit an MR to add our > > > entry to sashiko-k8s.yaml and customize the bot's email behavior in > > > email_policy.toml. > > > > > > Full Sashiko Maintainer documentation is available here: > > > https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/blob/main/MAINTAINERS_GUIDE.md > > > > > > Personally, I would vote to set reply_to_author. I don't have a strong > > > opinion on the other custom options, provided that the CC list is opt-in > > > rather than simply mirrored from the MAINTAINERS::LIVE PATCHING file. > > > Either way, I've found the Sashiko web interface very helpful in patch > > > review. > > > > Given the relatively low volume of patches to the livepatch mail list, I > > think we can use reply_all. But if folks prefer reply_to_author instead, > > we sure can use the cc list. > > I would vote reply_all. The signal/noise ratio isn't perfect, but it's > high enough to be useful in many cases. That way the > maintainers/reviewers are aware of any potential issues, and it avoids > duplicating review work and fragmenting conversations.
+1 Miroslav
