On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 04:40:39PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx) 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, > > (I didn't know of the tab discussion) > > > > > 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? > > If it's separate I think it needs to have a link from submitting-patches.rst > to get people to read it. Absolutely agree. > > To summarise some other things that came up between the threads: > a) I think there should be a standard syntax for stating it is > AI written; I'd suggested using a new tag, but others were > arguing on the side of reusing existing tags, which seems OK > if it is done in a standard way and doesn't confuse existing tools. Yes. > > b) There's a whole spectrum of: > i) AI wrote the whole patch based on a vague requirement > ii) AI is in the editor and tab completes stuff > iii) AI suggests fixes/changes > which do you care about? I think any AI involvment that results in _changes to the code_ should require the tag. > > c) But then once you get stuff suggesting fixes/changes people were > wondering if you should specify other non-AI tools as well. > That might help reviewers who get bombed by a million patches > from some conventional tool. I think this would be useful, yes. We'd had isues with this before. It'd be good to standardise, ideally. > > d) Either way there needs to be emphasis that the 'Signed-off-by' > is a human declaring it's all legal and checked. This is also a wise point with which I agree.
