On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 08:26:37AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 12:38:09PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 at 11:52, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > +At times contributors may use or create scripts/tools to generate an > >> > initial > >> > +boilerplate code template which is then filled in to produce the final > >> > patch. > >> > +The output of such a tool would still be considered the "preferred > >> > format", > >> > +since it is intended to be a foundation for further human authored > >> > changes. > >> > +Such tools are acceptable to use, provided they follow a deterministic > >> > process > >> > +and there is clearly defined copyright and licensing for their output. > >> > >> For the case where there's a one-off generation step and then the > >> intent is purely human-authored changes from there onwards, why > >> do we care whether the tool followed a deterministic process or > >> not? As long as the copyright/licensing situation is clear and > >> the submitter has checked tha the generation is what they want, > >> what does determinism get us? > > > > The copyright/licensing is important, but it was trying to say > > more than that to limit the scenarios in which generated code > > would be contributed. I think determinism in the tool's operation > > is valuable, but probably not the key point to get across here. > > > > We don't want a free for all in hand editting and then contributnig > > any auto-generated content. We only want generated content included > > where it was explicitly intended that it serve as a "template" for > > human refinement. > > > > Determinisism in the sense that if a 2nd person used the same > > tool to auto-generate the base template for editting, they would > > be starting from the same place as the original contributior. > > > >> As a trivial example, this rules out a hacky one-off python > >> script that produces output by iterating through a hashtable > >> if you forgot to add a "sort" to that ordering to make it > >> deterministic. > > > > NB it is trying to say that the way the tool operates is determinstic, > > not that its output is neccessarily stable wrt things like sorting. > > ie you can rationalize about what the tool is going to emit, but. > > I think the paragraph's purpose is to clarify "preferred format" is what > developers want to work with going forward even when the initial > contribution started with generated contents. > > I think the "deterministic process" clause distracts from this. > Moreover, it feels largely redundant with the next patch's "Use of AI > content generators". Scratch the clause? > > Such tools are acceptable to use, provided and there is clearly defined > copyright and licensing for their output.
Fine for me. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
