On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 09:50:51 -0300, Julio Faracco wrote: > Em sex., 16 de jan. de 2026 às 02:33, Peter Krempa > <[email protected]> escreveu:
[...] > > Specifically paragraph: > > > > "These additions ensure that multitouch devices are fully integrated > > with libvirt's security, auditing, and validation infrastructure. > > Without these changes, multitouch devices would trigger warnings about > > unhandled enum values or potentially cause security labeling failures. > > > > strikes as AI. Because it's overly verbose and half of the things that > > are mentioned are not even true (e.g. it adds no-op code to the selinux > > driver), the other half is trying to justify fix for build failures from > > previous patches. > > > > I DO NOT use AI agents to generate code obviously, but I do to improve > the quality of the commit message/cover letter. What you did definitely *DID NOT* improve the quality. It did the exact oposite! Commit messages are part of the contribution, and putting AI slop there (and what you've sent is slop because it's overly verbose, misleading and with basically 0 value) is actively bad for the project. When I read a commit message I do that so that I gain understanding why something happened or understand some detail which may not be obvious from the code. Putting 3 paragraphs of basically useless garbage description for a 1 line change wastes time and shows total disrespect to anyone who'd want to understand what's going on. That's especially the case for the wrong/misleading description of the addition to the security driver and possibly others. Commit messages don't need to be novels/pages full of text, but rather need to contain detail not present in the code. And also make sure to consider that people *do* read them, they are not just for decoration. > Let me resend the patch to fix the compilation issues and use my own words > then. If you didn't use AI to generate the code then just get rid of all the slop from the commit messages.
