Em Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:18:29 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:34:28 +0100 > Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Which looked like someone else (now Cc'd on this thread) took it public, > > > and I wanted to see where that ended. I didn't want to start another > > > discussion when there's already two in progress. > > > > OK, but having a document like this is not in my view optional - we must > > have a clear, stated policy and one which ideally makes plain that it's > > opt-in and maintainers may choose not to take these patches. > > That sounds pretty much exactly as what I was stating in our meeting. That > is, it is OK to submit a patch written with AI but you must disclose it. It > is also the right of the Maintainer to refuse to take any patch that was > written in AI. They may feel that they want someone who fully understands > what that patch does, and AI can cloud the knowledge of that patch from the > author. > > I guess a statement in submitting-patches.rst would suffice, or should it > be a separate standalone document? As you pointed earlier on this thread, I think something like this is good enough: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250724175439.76962-1-linux@xxxxxxxxxxx/ E.g. just a couple of paragraphs at submitting-patches should work. Now, if we end adding an AI-focused instruction set like what it was proposed here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250725175358.1989323-1-sashal@xxxxxxxxxx/ I would add a mention and change the text to ask the ones developing patches with AI/LLM to ensure that AI accessed the ruleset when possible(*). (*) sometimes, AI may not have direct access to the internet and/or may be using old caches. Thanks, Mauro
