From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78C5B1397; Mon, 15 Sep 2025 11:48:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757936919; cv=none; b=qIXZav9yCJCf4VUmUTWoOdBw0Z0ZRc3Plzl4LIR+q6z3nZd6BBlHd+Hgd7ZdbooPp5fuuhNZWsUiM++/c3JDxBmYHiN7Et9t/OXZsEr5ZNjmZf9kShFgIG+sF2xhjUmTj7ecVIShHD+1fTocWQ0iO7OWf3nJOQDfj7/toVUPrAk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757936919; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EFzV0A6vIaZngi/ZXutYPmUuHt4mEkkefaQljnOFnTw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=RBA0y/hItVHpV88mAO2Rd+e0KKupo2J9FKrjLJkGvJdbMPzIo48dhyEknRcA0iuZdAIysqjqK+ZYLiMWpDrMEPOKS1YZp7xVgnV5bCQ+jqj59K+2XfY21v7zrudNEeMXRfRy3Q4mypFj6tWXHRwS30kMFbXvMgVFzVKpWF5j7ys= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=rT/cuUAy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="rT/cuUAy" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0006BC4CEF1; Mon, 15 Sep 2025 11:48:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1757936919; bh=EFzV0A6vIaZngi/ZXutYPmUuHt4mEkkefaQljnOFnTw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=rT/cuUAyl7sBs731pqIDPOYaTcziWqUpP1Z34dNuYpSDHEPgweUE8GwXxKPlkKDGz 2TVWgxeeqeM8eSxUQhj4aHip459M4enseiwhLgORVeMymtW5RcmglZmxn+WGdUSkQs erXy1Yb5a+uzTKSxle4IPecFz7RO/nT7el5yd70TVbejdZzSEQM6MlUJ2nwahqjCYd uPuo/kGysds0lAx97qA4/cQqbDBL6CWH7quiJKuiXAb+RTtRvUdDxH/imi7/cAok74 TugL755/fIJcto9c9kH6MVuPM4e+IuYre7dGJr01z5Pqrl1c6tEvgsdIfH5YtXAWKY 6TnAsVuJuEOWg== Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 07:48:37 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Mark Brown Cc: Nicolas Frattaroli , konstantin@linuxfoundation.org, axboe@kernel.dk, csander@purestorage.com, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: [RFC] b4 dig: Add AI-powered email relationship discovery command Message-ID: References: <20250905-sparkling-stalwart-galago-8a87e0@lemur> <4764751.e9J7NaK4W3@workhorse> <4278380.jE0xQCEvom@workhorse> <6e25b2e7-67a2-4a92-95d5-adb279e811a7@sirena.org.uk> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6e25b2e7-67a2-4a92-95d5-adb279e811a7@sirena.org.uk> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:26:41PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >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. Do you mean using the Assisted-by tags that were discussed in the other thread? -- Thanks, Sasha