+cc Jens as reference him 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.
I mean you are making an absolutely valid point, I'd say that'd be a rather silly conclusion to take, but we have to be wary of 'lawyering' the doc here. > > > > 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 I don't really read that as grumpy, I understand wanting to be agreeable but sometimes it's appropriate to be emphatic, which is the entire purpose of this amendment. Taking into account Jens's input too: +If tools permit you to generate series automatically, expect +additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated. + +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, then don't submit the +resulting changes. + +If you do so anyway, maintainers are entitled to reject your series without +detailed review. Does this work? As per Dan later in this thread I do truly wish we could have (yes in all caps) 'NO SLOP PLEASE'. But I am compromising on that ;) Cheers, Lorenzo
