On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 11:46:17AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 09:21:14PM +0000, Daniel Golle wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > This RFC series adds a new boot method for OpenWrt's "uImage.FIT with > > embedded rootfs" firmware model, along with the underlying infrastructure > > to load FIT images on-demand directly from storage devices without copying > > them entirely to RAM first. > [snip] > > AI tool disclosure > > ================== > > > > Major parts of this series were developed with assistance from GitHub > > Copilot (Claude Opus 4.6, Anthropic). The AI was used as a coding > > partner for scaffolding boilerplate, drafting documentation and commit > > messages, running checkpatch sweeps, and iterating on review feedback. > > All architectural decisions, U-Boot subsystem integration, hardware > > testing, and final review were done by the human author. Every line of > > code was reviewed and tested on real hardware before inclusion. > > First, I appreciate your honesty and explanation in the disclosure here. > > This topic comes up, and will keep coming up, and as a project we have > not yet decided on a position. I know that the Linux Kernel has come up > with: > https://docs.kernel.org/next/process/generated-content.html > so far. But I think that: > https://docs.postmarketos.org/policies-and-processes/development/contributing-and-ai.html > brings up points that are quite relevant too. Absolutely no one has been > happy with when gitlab or patchwork were unusable / unreachable (and for > some people are still unusable) but it's because of all the AI scrapers > that things were unusable or now have anubis in front of them (blocking > other humans now). > > With that said, I want to stress the "human is responsible" portion of > what both links say, and that given where exactly these changes are > aimed for, extra scrutiny is required. Things like: > https://cyberplace.social/@GossiTheDog/116080909947754833 > show just how bad they are about introducing security bugs these days.
Following up on this part I suppose, I see in CI you're working on v2 but please make sure to follow up with the other outstanding questions I've asked before posting that. Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
