On Thu, 2026-01-08 at 13:56 +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 08:17:09AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2026-01-08 at 11:56 +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: [...] > > > + > > > +As with the output of any tooling, > > > > > > > maintainers will not tolerate 'slop' - > > > > Just delete this phrase (partly because it's very tied to a non- > > standard and very recent use of the word slop, but mostly because > > it doesn't add anything actionable to the reader). > > I mean I'm not expecting this to land given Linus's position :) > > But if removing this sentence allowed the below in sure. > > However personally I think it's very important to say 'slop' here. > It's more so to make it abundantly clear that the kernel takes the > position that we don't accept it.
Perhaps I can help clarify. You're using the word "slop" to mean output of tools that is actually wrong ... which can happen to any tool, not just AI. And you want any statement to include that explicitly. I'm saying anything you can't explain won't be accepted, which, I think, necessarily includes any output the tool gets wrong. But I don't object to saying this in a more generic form, so how about this as the compromise --- +As with the output of any tooling, The result can be incorrect or inappropriate so +you are expected to understand and to be able to defend everything you +submit. If you are unable to do so, maintainers may choose to reject your +series outright. --- Regards, James
