On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 09:53:12AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 9:48 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -How contributors could comply with DCO terms (b) or (c) for the output > > > of AI > > > -content generators commonly available today is unclear. The QEMU > > > project is > > > -not willing or able to accept the legal risks of non-compliance. > > > +If you wish to send large amounts of AI-generated changes, or any other > > > +contribution not in the above categories, please get in touch with the > > > +maintainer beforehand. > > > > To be clear, the implication is that > > These can be accepted at the discretion of the maintainer > > Yes. > > > Maybe make it explicit. > > Ok. > > > > + AI-used-for: tests, docs > > > + AI-used-for: code > > > + AI-used-for: code (refactoring) > > > + AI-used-for: code (prototype) > > > + AI-used-for: research
BTW: commit log ? > > Why include research here when we also explicitly say: > > > > > +These boundaries do not apply to other uses of AI, such as > > researching > > > +APIs or algorithms, static analysis, or debugging, provided the > > model's > > > +output is not included in contributions. > > I suppose it can still be useful for traceability. I copied it from > Kevin's proposal but I can remove it. > > "Research" may also include using a script written by the LLM, which > is encouraged in the first section. > > Paolo but again, if the script is not merged, then the boundaries do not apply? -- MST
