On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 03:57:30PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:

> We've started[1] the workflows@ list (which is how I stumbled on this thread)
> about 5-6 years ago when the concern from multiple maintainers was that we all
> have our magical scripts, they are seriously ugly, and everyone are ashamed of
> sharing them. So this list was an effort to get the ball rolling on folks
> sharing some of those ugly workflows and scripts in an attempt to standardize
> and improve our processes.

> I've shared this very hacky b4-dig script as exactly that: I have a very ugly
> bash script that addresses some of the issues Linus brought up around being
> able to find more context for a given patch/mail.  I use that script often, it
> helps me spend less time on browsing lore (no, dfn: won't find you syzbot
> reports or CI failures), and it just "works for me".

This seems like a great example of a situation where the suggestions
from one of the other thread of asking people to clearly mark when patch
submissions are using these tools would have helped - had the submission
described the above then the Python level review would've gone a lot
differently I think.  Realising during review is a totally different
experience to being told up front.