Re: sashiko-bot@xxxxxxxxxx's Cc list on reviews

[Roman Gushchin]

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 3:26 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2026, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 2:08 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Roman!
> > >
> > > Sashiko's choice of Cc is... odd.  The original mail has a whole pile of folks
> > > in both the To: and Cc:, but sashiko-bot is only replying to myself and (very
> > > bizarrely) linux-hyperv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> > >
> > > Oooh, is it perhaps because linux-hyperv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the only mailing
> > > list on the original Cc that has opted-in to getting emails?  If that's the case,
> > > we might want to change that, even though it could result in people getting grumpy
> > > about unwanted bot mail, because IMO the alternative is worse.  I've been responding
> > > to some (mostly very good!) good sashiko-bot feedback, but only just now noticed
> > > that the vast majority of folks on the To/Cc of the original patch won't see the
> > > reviews.  That's bound to cause confusion, e.g. if someone reports the same issues
> > > and/or manually looks at sashiko.dev.
> >
> > Hi Sean!
> >
> > It's expected per configuration here:
> > https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/blob/main/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml#L138
> > .
> > It can be configured to reply to all as well, but since there are some
> > very vocal anti-AI folks in the community, this might create some
> > friction.
>
> Heh, "might".

:)

> > In any case, I'm relying on the corresponding maintainers' decision on how
> > they want to configure Sashiko.
>
> What level of configurability does the parser have?  Specifically, can it key off
> the Cc/To in addition to the list?  I ask because I really, really, want to enable
> auto-mailing for at least KVM x86, but kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is wildly overloaded.
> I could try and drive consensus across all 30+ maintainers, but if there's a way
> to precisely enable it for just KVM x86...
>
> E.g. is there a way to do something like:
>
> [subsystems.kvm_x86]
> lists = ["kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" && <email is To: seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>]
> reply_all = true

No, currently it's only per-mailing list. I did not expect that it
would be that contentious.
Maybe it should be based on entries in the maintainers file instead.
But even then,
what if a sub-subsystem wants emails and the top-level subsystem maintainers
are against it? Or if a patchset touches multiple subsystems.

I mean if building a complex configuration system is the only way
forward, ok, it's kinda silly,
but why not.