Re: Stop false review statements

[SeongJae Park]

On Sat, 16 May 2026 08:49:39 -0700 Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> > 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:
[...]
> >> 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

[...]