On Mon, 4 Aug 2025, Sasha Levin wrote: > > The above guidance is quite vague. How me as a maintainer should know > > that whatever AI tool has been used is meeting those two conditions > > In exactly the same way you know that a human contributor didn't copy > code with an incompatible license. > > Quoting from Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst : > > - Signed-off-by: this is a developer's certification that he or > she has the right to submit the patch for inclusion into the > kernel. It is an agreement to the Developer's Certificate of > Origin, the full text of which can be found in > :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > <submittingpatches>` Code without a proper signoff cannot be > merged into the mainline. > > The Signed-off-by tag doesn't mean that a commit was reviewed, it > doesn't mean that someone tested it, nor does it indicate that the > person who signed off belives it is correct. > > It only means that the person has legally certified to you what is > stated in the DCO. Al made a very important point somewhere earlier in this thread. The most important (from the code quality POV) thing is -- is there a person that understands the patch enough to be able to answer questions (coming from some other human -- most likely reviewer/maintainer)? That's not something that'd be reflected in DCO, but it's very important fact for the maintainer's decision process. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs
