On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 02:12:32PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il lun 21 set 2026, 13:11 Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> ha > scritto: > > > > > +### No automated posting > > > > + > > > > +Agents **must not** use any API, CLI, or web UI automation to: > > > > + > > > > +- Interact on the QEMU mailing lists > > > > +- Create, edit, or close **issues ("work items")** > > > > +- Post **comments** on merge requests, issues or commits > > > > +- Open or update **merge requests (MRs)**. QEMU does not use merge > > requests anyway. > > > > + > > > > > > Are we considering project agents (such as the stsquad-bot) exempt from > > > this policy? I'm not sure what a normal agent can do via the API as it > > > wouldn't have the project level access the stsquad-bot needs. > > > > At least a user's agent can likely bulk file work items without elevated > > access privs, as we've seen by the several slop-bombs we've had. > > > > I'd add a footnote for that along the lines of: > > > > 'Official project agents whose code is maintained under > > gitlab.com/qemu-project > > may be exempted from one or more of these rules, at the discretion of > > the QEMU > > project maintainer(s)' > > > > Sure. > > > > +### No AI-written text must reach maintainers > > > > + > > > > +These rules apply when publishing AI-assisted work to GitLab or the > > mailing list: > > > > + > > > > +- **AI-written cover letters and commit messages are banned**. These > > are > > > > + easy to recognize and waste reviewers' time. > > > > +- **AI-generated responses to reviewer comments are banned**. This > > undermines > > > > + the human-to-human interaction fundamental to code review. > > > > +- **AI-written issue ("work item") descriptions or comments are > > banned**. These > > > > + are verbose and waste triagers' time. > > > > + - An exception is made for issues for defects detected by automated > > or > > > > + semi-automated tooling, including fuzzers and LLM-assisted defect > > > > + detection. Such issues must be reviewed by a human before > > creation, > > > > + must be created by a human and communication with maintainers must > > > > + be done by a human, but including the verbatim tool output in the > > > > + issue description is explicitly allowed. > > > > I kind of want to eliminate this exception. IMHO from the bugs we're > > getting, I think human's are often putting very little effort into > > reviewing the tools output, such that it is largely a box ticking > > exercise to claim they've reviewed it. > > > > If we removed the exception, and required humans to write up the > > finding of the fuzzer/detect detection in human language, that > > may do a better job of getting people to engage in more critical > > thinking rather than rubber stamping the tool output. > > > > It would limit the ability of people bulk file 50+ tickets in a day. > > > > I think that's the problem, namely not realizing there's someone on the > other side. > > LLM write-ups are essentially the same as patents, they look like English > but they're not; and the verbosity of the write-ups is sometimes a curse > and sometimes a blessing. There is a tension between having a simple > description of the issue and an unopinionated one. The fix is not always > trivially obvious, and sometimes the "executive summary" from the LLM > points in the wrong direction—I have no expectation that human reporters > will be any better at not misleading me.
The difference though is that when I put effort into responding to a wrong executive summary written by the human, it is still potentially a reasonable use of my time as they might learn something from the exchange. Responding to a wrong executive summary from the bot sucks the will to live as you know it won't improve things next time around. > In fact I'd rather like us to introduce an explicit rule that a person/ > > tool must not file more than about 5 tickets in a single day, without > > prior approval from maintainers, so we don't get bombarded at such a > > high rate. > > > > Sure, that's a good idea. Even 5 per month... I wouldn't want to limit organically found bugs quite that low, but for automated bug discovery we need to stem the flow, and set a stronger expectation for the contributor writing a patch and taking responsibility to submit it via qemu-devel. Ideally we would get people sending patches directly to the list without the bug tracker at all, except for security bugs - which needs the security classification work: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2026-09/msg03555.html With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com ~~ https://hachyderm.io/@berrange :| |: https://libvirt.org ~~ https://entangle-photo.org :| |: https://pixelfed.art/berrange ~~ https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
