On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 08:42:56AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > 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 >
Exactly. Every version of watering it down just makes it meaningless noise. The point is to emphasise this.
