Re: Stop false review statements

[Roman Gushchin]

> On May 16, 2026, at 8:45 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 08:41:43AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> 
>>>> On May 16, 2026, at 8:20 AM, Konstantin Ryabitsev <mricon@xxxxxxxxxx> 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/20260515190707.033BDC2BCB0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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