* Jens Axboe <[email protected]> [260108 15:54]: > On 1/8/26 12:23 PM, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > >> @@ -95,3 +95,8 @@ choose how they handle the contribution. For example, > >> they might: > >> - Ask the submitter to explain in more detail about the contribution > >> so that the maintainer can feel comfortable that the submitter fully > >> understands how the code works. > >> + > >> +Finally, always be prepared for tooling that produces incorrect or > >> +inappropriate content. Make sure you understand and to be able to > >> +defend everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, maintainers > >> +may choose to reject your series outright. > >> > > > > I feel like this formulation waters it down so much as to lose the emphasis > > which was the entire point of it. > > > > I'm also not sure why we're losing the scrutiny part? > > > > Something like: > > > > +If tools permit you to generate series entirely automatically, expect > > +additional scrutiny. > > + > > +As with the output of any tooling, the result maybe incorrect or > > +inappropriate, so you are expected to understand and to be able to defend > > +everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, maintainers may choose > > +to reject your series outright. > > Eh, why not some variant of: > > "If you are unable to do so, then don't submit the resulting changes." > > Talking only for myself, I have ZERO interest in receiving code from > someone that doesn't even understand what it does. And it'd be better to > NOT waste my or anyone elses time if that's the level of the submission.
Yes, agreed. If I cannot understand it and the author is clueless about the patch, then I'm going to be way more grumpy than the wording of that statement. I'd assume the submitter would just get the ai to answer it anyways since that's fitting with the level of the submission. Thanks, Liam
