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

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 07:28:01 +0000
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> wrote:

> > It's better to have a grumpy document, instead of grumpy emails.  We
> > need it to sound grumpy and it needs to be the first paragraph.

I disagree. Specifically because of what Linus had said  (see below).

> >
> > AI Slop:  AI can generate a ton of patches automatically which creates a
> > burden on the upstream maintainers.  The maintainers need to review
> > every line of every patch and they expect the submitters to demonstrate
> > that even the generated code was verified to be accurate.  If you are
> > unsure of whether a patch is appropriate then do not send it.  NO AI
> > SLOP!
> >
> > Of course, sensible people don't need to be told this stuff, but there
> > are well intentioned people who need it explained.
> >
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >  
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Every version of watering it down just makes it meaningless noise. The point is
> to emphasise this.

The thing is, the AI slop sending culprits are not going to be the ones to
read this. It's the people who want to do the right thing that this
document is focused on and that's why I think it should be more welcoming.

That said, I just started looking at your other email and that does look
better. I'll reply there.

-- Steve