On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 12:18:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
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
This should probably be a stronger statement if we don't have it in the
docs yet: a maintainer can refuse to take any patch, period.
what that patch does, and AI can cloud the knowledge of that patch from the
author.
Maybe we should unify this with the academic research doc we already
have?
This way we can extend MAINTAINERS to indicate which subsystems are
more open to research work (drivers/staging/ comes to mind) vs ones that
aren't.
Some sort of a "traffic light" system:
1. Green: the subsystem is happy to receive patches from any source.
2. Yellow: "If you're unfamiliar with the subsystem and using any
tooling to generate your patches, please have a reviewed-by from a
trusted developer before sending your patch".
3. No tool-generated patches without prior maintainer approval.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
