On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 04:10:07PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 03:29:44PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > > > On 7/7/26 11:55, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > > LGTM! Do you want to send that then? People can comment on the actual > > > > path then > > > > (probably worth cc'ing everybody here on that also). > > > > > > Let's first gather some more thoughts on the rough direction before > > > spinning of > > > yet another discussion. :) > > > > I'm suggesting sending a simple, uncontroversial, change to get movement > > rather > > than continue this never-ending talking shop :) > > Oh but I love shop talk! :P > > My opinions (having been on vacation for most of this thread) are > roughly: > > 1. For patches generated by deterministic tools (e.g. sed/cocinelle), > please include the source code so that anyone reading the patch can > check the reproducibility of that patch. But that can be free-form > in the commit message: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/157343508488.1945685.9867882880040545380.stgit@magnolia/ > > 2. For nondeterministic machine assistance, I like the idea of asking > patch submitters to note which part(s) of the patch had machine > assistance applied. I don't care all that much about the technology > used (e.g. LLM, or Eliza, or whatever). Something like: > > Assisted-by: LLM # commit message > Assisted-by: LLM # finding bugs in the original commit > > I don't care to give free advertising to any specific LLM-pusher, nor > do I care to give the whole *industry* any free publicity. They can > spend their own leveraged money on advertising. > > Mecha-assistance-done-by: finding bugs in the original commit > > or maybe just > > MAD: finding bugs in the original commit > > :P > > 3. I grade *all* the trailers that submitters attach to patches! And > how well they engage me on my weird followup questions! Both help me to > construct a conscientiousness vibe, which is how I decide how much > effort to put into making a response. Do you allege that your patch > fixes a bug but fail to cc stable? Do you post obviously LLM generated > content but leave out an Assisted-by tag? Do you habitually drop off > the list for long periods of time? Decline to run /any/ QA on your > patches at all? Not gonna waste my time. > > OTOH, I also look for *good* behavior: cc'ing stable, responding to > questions with a day or two, kvetching on fstests@ about the horridness > of bash scripts? I find that endearing. ;) > > --D > > > Anyway I'll leave it up to you! > > > > Thanks, Lorenzo > >
I love all of this, no notes :) Cheers, Lorenzo
