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.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
