Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> writes: > On 5/16/26 05:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Quotes from the existing policy: >> >> 1. "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:" >> >> Tool cannot use first person "I". Tool cannot "state that". >> >> 2. "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an >> appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious" >> >> Tool cannot make a statement of opinion. >> >> 3. "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a >> Reviewed-by". >> >> Tool is not a reviewer as a person, thus above does not grant the tool >> permission to offer a tag. > > I'd like to see that explicitly spelled out. Until then it is your opinion.
So I'm the person who wrote that text. Automated review tools weren't really on the radar at that time, so I can't argue that it expresses an opinion either way as to whether an LLM could make such assertions. That said, I was certainly considering *human* reviewers at the time, and all of the people who agreed with the suggested policy were too. Adding bots seems like a stretch to me. I can't speak for subsystems that require Reviewed-by tags on their commits, but I'm not sure that their maintainers would accept an automated review as satisfying that requirement. If we want to record this sort of processing, perhaps a tag like "Scanned-by" would be appropriate? jon
