From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F936606A88A for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 10:15:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=YjTEWVmJ Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xRoIi-0000AR-KH; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 05:14:32 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xRoIg-0008Va-NB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 05:14:30 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xRoIe-0003t2-Sp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 05:14:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1794564867; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LMOTJdC4FRjldVgjUE6g9IHAcDXU0z2qqfhjegY6YIk=; b=YjTEWVmJ49pHg0MD2ZQ6MzVBdf9oh/TeCVv8xAJvfn2ii2zWmFc/IqkTqjmV8er2VFiwBh u2fN013BexIpiFACTXGNOIKZPtLscmB1RALaumzWTBAcRkwVDsmW84WheQL507NpSRKFxL ijZ6CdT8CY34npNtZSW+1I6G21I8CyA= Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-392-W4I-7iiKPOGYp_UgJZ1KWA-1; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 05:14:23 -0500 X-MC-Unique: W4I-7iiKPOGYp_UgJZ1KWA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: W4I-7iiKPOGYp_UgJZ1KWA_1794564862 Received: from mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EFA81977321; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 10:14:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.44.22.7]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEB8130000E5; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 10:14:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8684821E6A04; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 11:14:18 +0100 (CET) From: Markus Armbruster To: Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang=C3=A9?= Cc: Peter Maydell , Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , Alistair Francis , BALATON Zoltan , Fabiano Rosas , Kevin Wolf , Warner Losh , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] docs/devel: relax policy on AI-generated contributions In-Reply-To: ("Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9=22's?= message of "Fri, 2 Oct 2026 15:53:16 +0100") References: <20260930085433.830743-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20260930085433.830743-2-pbonzini@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2026 11:14:18 +0100 Message-ID: <87ik21vy11.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: 5 X-Spam_score: 0.5 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (0.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 writes: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2026 at 01:21:43PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Sept 2026 at 09:54, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> > +LLM-assisted and LLM-created contributions >> > +'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> > + >> > +Use of generative AI can be classified in the following four buckets: >> > + >> > +- "background" assistance, such as completion and code review. This = does >> > + not need disclosure. >> > + >> > +- small LLM-assisted bugfixes (as a rule of thumb, below 10 lines of = code) >> > + are allowed with disclosure. Splitting a submission in multiple pa= rts >> > + is **not** a valid way to bypass this rule; repeated, frequent post= ing >> > + of such fixes must follow the rule for full contributions. >> > + >> > +- use of LLMs to help generating parts of a larger patch---test cases, >> > + adaptations of existing code, boilerplate code for a new API, a too= l to >> > + help performing mechanical changes, etc. These are generally allow= ed; >> > + disclosure is highly recommended for non-trivial, functional code. >>=20 >> I think we can get or have consensus on these first three buckets... >>=20 >> > +- large, heavily LLM-assisted contributions where LLMs write large pa= rts >> > + of functional code. These are only allowed if *pre-arranged*, >> > + *high-quality* and *well-tested*. >> > + >> > +The last case (*"LLM-created contribution"*) is the one that requires >> > +a more careful approach. In particular: >> > + >> > +- "Pre-arranged" means that a maintainer has communicated ahead of ti= me, >> > + for example on `IRC or the QEMU mailing >> > + list `__, that they are willing >> > + to review an LLM-created contribution. >> > + >> > +- "High-quality" means that the contributor must apply the same judgm= ent >> > + that would be applied to other code changes. Contributors must inv= est >> > + substantial time reviewing their contributions, curating them, and >> > + understanding them in depth. >> > + >> > +- "Well-tested" means the LLM-created contributions will be held to a >> > + higher standard than human-created ones, because LLMs make it easier >> > + to write tests. There are no exceptions for "writing the tests see= ms >> > + hard" or for `yak shaving `__. >>=20 >> ...but I think fundamentally I am not in favour of having this >> fourth category of permitted uses. It seems even to have lost the >> idea of it being an "experimental" approach in this revision of the >> series. The first three categories are fine, and I have no particular >> problem with our relaxing our current policy to explicitly permit them. > > I suggested previously to remove the "experimental" tag, because it > felt rather misleading wrt what the policy was actually proposing to > permit in practice. > > > When we're saying that a maintainer and contributor can agree to > use AI for *anything* and will merge it, then that work has ceased > to be for "experiments". It is a fully accepted use case for writing > and merging code. All the policy is doing at that point is attempting > to rate-limit work by requiring prior agreement to use AI. > > >> Our problem as a project does not seem to be on the "writing >> code" side of things, but has always been on the "code review" >> side. This policy relaxation makes it much easier to write more >> code. Even when there's a "pre-arranged reviewer" that isn't >> necessarily helpful -- if you're one of the primary maintainers >> for an area of QEMU then the fact that somebody else is reviewing >> it doesn't make a big AI-generated code infusion any more palatable. > > Yes, that is my concern with anything that ends up spreading outside > the bounds of a single subsystem & its maintainer(s). A big part (maybe the biggest) of my review load is patches crossing boundaries. Alice posts patches for a subsystem maintained by Bob and Charlie, but she also needs a new QMP interface, so I get copied on that. This is *fine*. David wants to do the same but with AI. He "pre-arranges", and Bob agrees to review. Does Charlie get a vote? What about me? Charlie and I can of course leave the review to Bob. But we'll have to live with whatever makes it into the tree. I fear this risks creating resentment among maintainers. [...]