Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

+cc Jens as reference him

On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 03:14:37PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:50:29 -0800
> Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/8/26 11:23, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > I'm also not sure why we're losing the scrutiny part?
> > >
> > > Something like:
> > >
> > > +If tools permit you to generate series entirely automatically, expect
> > > +additional scrutiny.
> >
> > The reason I resisted integrating this is it tries to draw too specific
> > a line in the sand. Someone could rightfully read that and say they
> > don't expect additional scrutiny because the entire series was not
> > automatically generated.

I mean you are making an absolutely valid point, I'd say that'd be a rather
silly conclusion to take, but we have to be wary of 'lawyering' the doc
here.

> >
> > What I want to say is: the more automation your tool provides, the more
> > scrutiny you get. Maybe:
> >
> > 	Expect increasing amounts of maintainer scrutiny on
> > 	contributions that were increasingly generated by tooling.
>
> Honestly that just sounds "grumpy" to me ;-)
>
> How about something like:
>
> 	All tooling is prone to make mistakes that differ from mistakes
> 	generated by humans. A maintainer may push back harder on
> 	submissions that were entirely or partially generated by tooling
> 	and expect the submitter to demonstrate that even the generated
> 	code was verified to be accurate.
>
> -- Steve

I don't really read that as grumpy, I understand wanting to be agreeable
but sometimes it's appropriate to be emphatic, which is the entire purpose
of this amendment.

Taking into account Jens's input too:

+If tools permit you to generate series automatically, expect
+additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated.
+
+As with the output of any tooling, the result maybe incorrect or
+inappropriate, so you are expected to understand and to be able to defend
+everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, then don't submit the
+resulting changes.
+
+If you do so anyway, maintainers are entitled to reject your series without
+detailed review.

Does this work?

As per Dan later in this thread I do truly wish we could have (yes in all
caps) 'NO SLOP PLEASE'. But I am compromising on that ;)

Cheers, Lorenzo