On 06/11/2026 15.58, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2026 at 14:50, Kevin Wolf <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 23.10.2026 um 15:00 hat Thomas Huth geschrieben:
Buglink: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/work_items/3762
Reported-by: Daniel Wade <[email protected]>
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/work_items/4470
Reported-by: Mayank Jangid (OpenSec)
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/work_items/4487
Reported-by: Ken Hsu, Royce Lu, and Bo Qu of Palo Alto Networks
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/work_items/4638
Reported-by: Thai Duong (Calif.io)
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/work_items/4733
Reported-by: Xiang Chen
So if I understand correctly, this issue is trivial enough that it was
found by five people('s AI agents) independently, can be fixed in five
lines of code, and not a single one of the reporters could be bothered
to send an actual patch or at least attach one to their report?
To be fair here, I am pretty sure that if any of these reporters were
going to produce a patch it would be an AI generated one, and our
current policy says we decline those.
Plus in my experience the hard part is not the code change but
doing the work to figure out if that is actually the right way
to fix the problem, what the consequences are, what any relevant
specs say, and so on. All of which we'd have to do in code review
if the patch came from somebody who doesn't already have enough
community trust about their ability to have done that.
All these reports seems to include two kilometers of AI output and
somewhere in it they typically hide a section on suggested fixes, but
always either in English or as a code snippet that you have to manually
insert in the right place instead of a patch that can actually be
applied.
I wonder if we're setting the wrong incentives if we reward such
laziness with Reported-by lines for each reporter. I'm inclined to drop
all of them and only leave the Resolves lines in place.
I have tended to collapse them all down where there are duplicates
and only give a reported-by to the one that reported first.
I don't think we need Resolves: tags for 5 identical bug
reports either -- we should mark all but one duplicate (which you
can do in gitlab with "/duplicate #1234" which will auto close
and link to that other bug) and only have the Resolves tag for
the one remaining open bug.
Fine for me, let's give the credits to the first person who found it and
mark all other tickets as duplicates.
Thomas
