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 > what that patch does, and AI can cloud the knowledge of that patch from the > author. *Ahem* You cropped: I'm not at all a fan of having a small entry hidden away in the submitting patches doc, this is a really major issue that needs special consideration and whose scope may change over time, so a dedicated document seems more appropriate. > > I guess a statement in submitting-patches.rst would suffice, or should it > be a separate standalone document? I think the bit you cropped answers my view on your question :)
