On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 07:06:23PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Am 29.05.26 um 11:46 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > > -Exceptions do not remove the need for authors to comply with all other > > -requirements for contribution. In particular, the "Signed-off-by" > > -label in a patch submission is a statement that the author takes > > -responsibility for the entire contents of the patch, including any parts > > -that were generated or assisted by AI tools or other tools. > > +.. code-block:: none > > + > > + AI-used-for: tests, docs > > + AI-used-for: code > > + AI-used-for: code (refactoring) > > + AI-used-for: code (prototype) > > + AI-used-for: research > > + > > +``AI-used-for`` should not be included for "background" usage such as > > +autocomplete or obtaining a pre-review of the patch. > > So what about using AI for security scanning? So how do we want to treat > a patch from a human that is based on an AI report.
This is ok by the current policy, too. > And if ok, would we then add something like > > Reported-by: Claude, chatgpt whatever? -- MST
