On May 25, 2026 3:21:59 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:11:49PM +0100, Josh Law wrote: >> On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >Hi Tom, >> > >> >On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote: >> >> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > > Hi, >> >> > > > >> >> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am >doing >> >> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a >> >brief >> >> > > > description of how it works. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new >'patman >> >> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or >perhaps >> >a >> >> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch, >does >> >a >> >> > > > review then adds its comments to its database. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry, >it >> >> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and >> >update >> >> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert >in >> >> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt >to >> >make >> >> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent >> >> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded >> >considerably. >> >> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me, >> >even >> >> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can >> >imagine >> >> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you >can >> >ask me here. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new >> >tools >> >> > > > for code review. >> >> > > >> >> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not >yet >> >have >> >> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was >> >making >> >> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human >> >> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent >didn't >> >see >> >> > > any problems". >> >> > > >> >> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first >pass >> >> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been >> >posting >> >> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is >> >that >> >> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the >> >agent >> >> > > one is using. >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is another >> >topic. >> >> >> >> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That scale >is >> >> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from someone >> >> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor >here >> >> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate. >> >> >> >> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later, thanks. >> > >> >I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and >> >then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need >> >to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the >> >'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed v1, >> >etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on >> >most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments). >> > >> >Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if it >> >is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project. >> > >> >Regards, >> >Simon >> > >> >> Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question >> >> How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI >> >> Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI" >> >> Or would it be like >> >> "AI reviewed this and it looks fine" >> >> Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :) > >That's one of my concerns, yes. And I've been a bit shocked that other, >bigger, projects that do allow for AI review haven't come up with >something already. > >
Personally Tom, projects like Linux take it slightly different maintainers usually say: "AI asked a question" then link the sashiko (AI review tool) link, with all of AIs comments The general gist, is if there is any comments, you either fix it, or you say why it isn't a bug I have mixed opinions on sashiko tbh. Also, maintainers tend to use their **OWN** review tools. But most projects do generally ban AI anything. Idk what we could do for u-boot when it comes to a sashiko like solution. Maybe we could talk about it? Thanks!
