On May 25, 2026 3:39:51 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:29:50PM +0100, Josh Law wrote: >> On May 25, 2026 3:27:18 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >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. >> > >> > >> >> I could put something into suggestion: >> >> >> So, for patches: you could do assisted bys, and it depends on the >> maintainer, etc etc like Linux, >> >> >> And for reviews: that's actually hard to think about, because some >> maintainers love using AI review tools because it's useful, others >> don't particularly like tools like that, maybe a opt-in "reviewman"? >> >> But tbh that's up for discussion. > >Thanks for offering, but it's going to be a large / contentious enough >issue that we haven't gotten to it yet, unfortunately. > >
Cool cool, have a nice one! Thanks!
