Hi Michael,
On 23/01/2026 15:48, Michael Tremer wrote:
Hello everyone,
While eating my lunch today I stumbled over the AI Usage Policy that the
Ghostty project has come up with. I quite liked it and I think that IPFire
should also have a policy for AI usage in place. We have not received such an
overwhelming amount of AI-generated patches unlike Ghostty and cURL, but we
have received some that have been very low quality and when asked questions,
the person who submitted this patch raised his hands and dropped out. This is
just a waste of time for everyone involved.
This policy that I have slightly adapted for IPFire demands that any kind of AI
usage is allowed, but has to be disclosed. The point is to avoid any kind of
low-quality, time-wasting submissions. I too believe that we should make this
known upfront so that we can all be on the same page and make the job easy for
us in case we need to reject any kind of patch submission.
On the other hand, the policy is encouraging AI usage as there are indeed tasks
where AI can help. But just because it is AI-generated does not mean that
something is good.
I would like you all to have a look at this and see if this is working for you
as well or if you would like to have any changes made to it:
Most of it seems fine to me and I agree with it.
The only concerns are that it refers to pull requests from external users but
as far as I am aware we generally don't accept pull requests, certainly not in
the GitHub repo. If any IPFire GitHub pull request has any merits then an
IPFire developer has to take the pull request and convert it into an IPFire
patch submission supplied to the IPFire Development mailing list.
If the intent of pull request as mentioned in the AI Policy is different than
what I have described above then it is not clear to me from the policy wording.
Regards,
Adolf.
https://www.ipfire.org/docs/devel/ai-policy
All the best,
-Michael
