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
