From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CDAB25A357 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 21:53:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754430790; cv=none; b=o3WH97aJTYwHmq7lHzisafZB8nP8py4ICPpY1clYYFR+2OItdSDgjF3pOAr/rrLhENe8y318ElYW7LtDfc/dJeh5GP/WDQqjiHhJ1QzvNK+rbYa5sC5QKtdJZ43ZZnsv4M1rsVrj4+cwwt3bovB7Mb1zxdSbKNWEakVTiQ/YpxU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754430790; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Mlisgtuy47R4JtgUOyJhpuaotZVI3gGJYXwFdlvL3wg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Ex1txTWkzTyYTnfhjznm1pHTdy5ClnZZo+rUKdj1mewuMAWo8uqfz9WBNrUy2nIhkj6MoO8y5wLvlMphnZ4IWmQkEYEEJApIYY+WB4/iWTVzI2CcZEHrn6JIbRxDi2NLU4wFkLi6i8MNPbBGsYXlQIhIUMg9mtd2kkRg7+q8swo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=OLNy+pBn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="OLNy+pBn" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C098C4CEF0; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 21:53:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754430790; bh=Mlisgtuy47R4JtgUOyJhpuaotZVI3gGJYXwFdlvL3wg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=OLNy+pBn60rKiiKIM3TR0jIRJFK+on+ctmerztpIhS3ZVPKkuRZwFIX2B89ohFINb eVVYyc6GSHdXAbjIUIZry0aBp0sqSmHUxzLuyy2ivlRh+24HBOm/LCE2/uC2FCp71I SZpnjFjs28vrkmvQ+VJRDzD63ghHC6aJ0+TVcSLSUiCmYNhEQ1Uej2GdJcA3mvYGo6 3E4V9W8r9/zAn80yfzhg/vTN1EfFSY6aUgpGT6MBaYMOXDTVl4pFeiOs9iaZlZ5NtF daqWShNed5DDx8sX2HCzJvpHJZtSLn329N/wkQBpx1JeMJF0unZkAnwqjDNiY0QJbi SYOm/BO6GC+1g== Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 23:53:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Sasha Levin cc: Laurent Pinchart , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> <20250805180010.GA24856@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 5 Aug 2025, Sasha Levin wrote: > In the context of this discussion it's a bit funny: we mandate that > reviews will be responded to, but we don't mandate that the response > will make any sense, which I think is Jiri's point. Yeah, indeed, pretty much. > The TIP maintainer's handbook (maintainer-tip.rst) actually seems to > tackle this: > > SOBs after the author SOB are from people handling and transporting > the patch, but were not involved in development. SOB chains should > reflect the **real** route a patch took as it was propagated to us, > with the first SOB entry signalling primary authorship of a single > author. > > Should we clarify that this is true for any kernel patches? It also seems to handle Co-developed-by: in a nice way a few lines above. I think both of these shouldn't really be specific to tip.git documentation, and should be made general. With this in place (and with the additional requirement of documenting that the code/patch has been LLM-assisted), I believe this specific part of the problem should be mostly covered. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs