Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 00:03:29 +0200 (CEST) > Jiri Kosina <kosina@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > Perhaps this is what needs to be explicitly stated in the SubmittingPatches > document. > > I know we can't change the DCO, but could we add something about our policy > is that if you submit code, you certify that you understand said code, even > if (especially) it was produced by AI? It is already the case that human developed code is not always understood by the submitter (i.e. bugs, or see occasions of "no functional changes intended" commits referenced by "Fixes:"). It is also already the case that the speed at which code is applied has a component of maintainer's trust in the submitter to stick around and address issues or work with the community. AI allows production of plausible code in higher volumes, but it does not fundamentally change the existing dynamic of development velocity vs trust. So an expectation that is worth clarifying is that mere appearance of technical correctness is not sufficient to move a proposal forward. The details of what constitutes sufficient trust are subsystem, maintainer, or even per-function specific. This is a nuanced expectation that human submitters struggle, let alone AI. "Be prepared to declare a confidence interval in every detail of a patch series, especially any AI generated pieces."
