On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:50:29 -0800
Dave Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/8/26 11:23, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > I'm also not sure why we're losing the scrutiny part?
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > +If tools permit you to generate series entirely automatically, expect
> > +additional scrutiny.
>
> The reason I resisted integrating this is it tries to draw too specific
> a line in the sand. Someone could rightfully read that and say they
> don't expect additional scrutiny because the entire series was not
> automatically generated.
>
> What I want to say is: the more automation your tool provides, the more
> scrutiny you get. Maybe:
>
> Expect increasing amounts of maintainer scrutiny on
> contributions that were increasingly generated by tooling.
Honestly that just sounds "grumpy" to me ;-)
How about something like:
All tooling is prone to make mistakes that differ from mistakes
generated by humans. A maintainer may push back harder on
submissions that were entirely or partially generated by tooling
and expect the submitter to demonstrate that even the generated
code was verified to be accurate.
-- Steve
