On 13/10/2026 14:59, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 02:31:32PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 04:42:46PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > >>> The tag's useful for push back on review, >> >> That's the point I raised during the maintainer summit. It's actually >> the *absence* of a tag that helps me push back on review. It allows me >> to ask submitters if they forgot to add the tag, and in many cases (so >> far) they simply don't reply. > > While the tag's useful for pushback, pushing back is the issue. > > The asymmetry between submitter volume/reviewer bandwidth is the MOST > CRITICAL issue we face. > > If reviewers are required to reply to all of these people, the project's > dead, AFAIC. > > Ignoring is the only workable long-term solution.
That was also mentioned by a few people according to Jon's report on LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/1099594/ and I think I could agree with that "ignore". IOW, we should change the contract offer we give to people (see Greg's commitment in "I don't want your code": "Review your patch within 1-2 weeks") to "if I suspect LLM waste of my time, I might never respond". Best regards, Krzysztof
