On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:25:19PM +0100, Josh Law wrote: > 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?
Proposing a policy for the project about AI (and indeed not just linking to other projects which have what I find to be helpful references) is on the TODO list for the project leadership committee. We've just been busily handling other issues for a while now, unfortunately. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
