Am 03.06.2026 um 17:35 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: > > > +**Small bug fixes** > > > + These should be limited to 20 lines of code or less, not including > > > + tests. You are still expected to :ref:`understand and explain your > > > changes > > > + <write_a_meaningful_commit_message>` and the rationale behind them. > > > > I think the "20 lines or less" is not going a good job at expressing > > the intent behind this point. I'd like us to emphasize between the > > "why" of this point, as that helps contributors & reviewers make a > > decision of whether a change is "within the spirit" or the rule of > > not. > > True but we also need a rule. The spirit is better explained elsewhere > (and also, building consensus on spirit vs. a rule are two different > things).
But "20 lines or less" is still not a good rule because it measures something that isn't really what we're after. The rule is "trivial code", and yes, there is no good way to measure that. But that's not a good reason to replace it with a metric as good as defining productivity of an engineer by lines of code added. Can we turn this just into an example, and also be a bit more specific? Like "20 lines of low complexity code"? (Or is it more like "moderate complexity" that you have in mind?) But it's definitely possible to write 20 lines that aren't trivial at all, so the rule shouldn't allow that. > > Docs is an area I'm more wary of from the social expectation side rather > > than the technical or legal side. I don't feeel like "pay attention to > > the organization and flow" really mitigates to the tendancy to production > > of vast reams of convincing sounding slop. > > Reviewers have no obligation to review. The good thing about slop is > that saying no takes about the same effort as the author put into the > creation of the change. Just saying "no, because I don't feel like reviewing this" is actually a new thing for most of us, and doesn't feel very comfortable. We may need to get used to it, but I don't think it's easy. > > > +There is no requirement to include your prompts or summarize the > > > +conversation in the commit message or cover letter, but you may do so > > > +if you think it helps a reviewer judge the result. For example: > > > > IMHO we should actively discourage the inclusion of prompts > > entirely as it is the wrong information to provide. > > Why? I think it helps especially in the case where we're asking for > maintainers to apply their discretion, and for reproducibility. It may > not be always applicable, but it can also help. Not sure how much reproducibility there can possibly be with LLMs. :-) Kevin
