On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 03:14:37PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > 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
It's better to have a grumpy document, instead of grumpy emails. We need it to sound grumpy and it needs to be the first paragraph. AI Slop: AI can generate a ton of patches automatically which creates a burden on the upstream maintainers. The maintainers need to review every line of every patch and they expect the submitters to demonstrate that even the generated code was verified to be accurate. If you are unsure of whether a patch is appropriate then do not send it. NO AI SLOP! Of course, sensible people don't need to be told this stuff, but there are well intentioned people who need it explained. regards, dan carpenter
