On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 12:36:25PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > 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. This sounds good, with a default on red. Which would enforce the opt-in part. > > -- > Thanks, > Sasha
