Re: Sashiko review email for kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?

[Paolo Bonzini]

On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 11:33 AM Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Beyond that, I'm struggling to understand why folks are opposed to getting mails
> > from Sashiko, especially for a list as large as kvm@.  As others pointed out, the
> > volume for kvm@ is already high, and it's trivially easy to create a filter for
> > mails from sashiko-bot@xxxxxxxxxx.  I.e. it seems highly unlikely that mail from
> > Sashiko will require anyone to significantly rethink and/or rework their workflow,
> > whereas the web site approach is very disruptive to email-based review, at least
> > for me.
>
> In my mind there's a clear separation between human feedback and
> non-human feedback. So the disruption is something that I prefer. Maybe
> I just haven't yet fully evaluated how much I trust its review in
> contrast to my human coworkers.

I think this is solved by saying there's no need to *answer* Sashiko,
it's treated just like any bot. It should be enough to mention on
v(n+1) what suggestions were taken (or otherwise influenced the code,
for example by adding a new comment to the code); and possibly a
single reply to the cover letter saying "all remaining issues that AI
pointed out are preexisting" (and if there are false positives,
perhap, include a short explanation).

Paolo