On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 04:04:39PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > * Jens Axboe <[email protected]> [260108 15:54]: > > On 1/8/26 12:23 PM, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > >> @@ -95,3 +95,8 @@ choose how they handle the contribution. For example, > > >> they might: > > >> - Ask the submitter to explain in more detail about the contribution > > >> so that the maintainer can feel comfortable that the submitter fully > > >> understands how the code works. > > >> + > > >> +Finally, always be prepared for tooling that produces incorrect or > > >> +inappropriate content. Make sure you 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. > > >> > > > > > > I feel like this formulation waters it down so much as to lose the > > > emphasis > > > which was the entire point of it. > > > > > > 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. > > > + > > > +As with the output of any tooling, the result maybe 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. > > > > Eh, why not some variant of: > > > > "If you are unable to do so, then don't submit the resulting changes." > > > > Talking only for myself, I have ZERO interest in receiving code from > > someone that doesn't even understand what it does. And it'd be better to > > NOT waste my or anyone elses time if that's the level of the submission. > > Yes, agreed. >
Yeah. Me too. > If I cannot understand it and the author is clueless about the patch, > then I'm going to be way more grumpy than the wording of that statement. > > I'd assume the submitter would just get the ai to answer it anyways > since that's fitting with the level of the submission. Yes. That has happened to me. I asked the submitter how do you know this is true? And the v2 had a long AI generated explanation which quoted a spec from an AI hallucination. I like Dave's document but the first paragraph should be to not send AI slop. regards, dan carpenter
