On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 08:12:33AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 8:00 AM Alex Bennée <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We should reflect the current status so users don't have unrealistic > > expectations of how quickly things can get reviewed and merged. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <[email protected]> > > > > Reviewed-by: Warner Losh <[email protected]>
snip > A lot of the upstreaming work that's stalled would be ideal to tell claude > to do, > but I'm unsure the project's stance on using claude to move code, and git > log > 5 different trees to get the original author(s) of the code and make > trivial compile > tweaks. The critical thing we don't want is such tools making changes to the contents of source files. Automating the moving around of files is a non-issue. The use of AI for writing commit messages is arguably in scope of QEMU's AI policy given that is part of "the contribution", but it is less serious there, since commit messages don't have a copyright implication on what we host & distribute. More important is that the commit messages are accurate and well written. LLMs have a tendancy to be overly verbose about irrelevant stuff, and of course the well known danger of hallucinating nonsense. IME that makes it challenging to benefit from an LLM, due to review & re-writing overheads you then incurr to validate and fix their output. I'd be wary of relying on an AI to extract and report on authorship of code. Accuracy is important there since it implies copyright ownership associations. Likewise a Signed-off-by tag should be added by humans only since it is a statement they are complying with the DCO policy. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
