On 10/13/26 11:07, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 04:18:32PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 02:55:59PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
The absence of the tag on a suspicious series offered a low-effort way
for maintainers to push back. What's the proposed low-effort replacement
?
Greg's suggested asking "how did you test this?" or similar, a lot of
people just throwing stuff at the wall simply won't respond.
I've done that too. I still find it better to have multiple tools at my
disposal, I want to be able to tell people they're expected to disclose
that the code they submit was generated.
Asking how the fix was found and tested has been helping me. I get silence
or didn't test it and that ends the discussion.
Maybe Documentation/process/generated-content.rst is enough. As I wrote,
what matters to me is the disclosure requirement, not the Assisted-by
tag as such. I'm however concerned that it's even easier for
contributors to ignore Documentation/process/generated-content.rst than
the tag.
We could add documentation to call out the need for telling us why the patch
is necessary and how the code was verified in the commit message.
This will save time asking those questions.
thanks,
-- Shuah
