From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
"John Snow" <jsnow@redhat.com>, "Kevin Wolf" <kwolf@redhat.com>,
"Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
"Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@redhat.com>,
"Mads Ynddal" <mads@ynddal.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] tracetool: add mypy --strict checking [AI discussion ahead!]
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 19:41:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wm52ejsj.fsf@pond.sub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <12439b02-9273-41b3-85f3-c98e319194ec@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Fri, 10 Oct 2025 15:49:28 +0200")
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:
> On 10/10/25 14:38, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> The boundary between legal and illegal is a superposition of fuzzy,
>> squiggly lines, one per jurisdiction.
>>
>> We can only try to approximate it from the legal side.
>> The tighter we try to approximate, the more risk we take on.
>>
>> In addition, tighter approximations can be difficult to understand and
>> apply.
>
> I agree.
>
>> [Strong argument why type annotations are low risk snipped...]
>
> Note that type annotations are pretty much the upper bound of what I
> would consider a mechanical change. I would expect, for most cases,
> that "include the prompt in the commit message" and the boringness of
> the change are together already a satisfactory explanation.
>
> At the same time, I decided to try with a more complex change to 1)
> avoid a slippery slope; it's easier to do so if you look at the hard
> cases from the beginning, and Daniel did that very, very well; 2) probe
> the limitations of the tool and ascertain if it's even worthwhile having
> an exception.
It was a useful experiment.
>>> There's a definite "slippery slope" situation. The incentive for
>>> contributors will be to search out reasons to justify why a work
>>> matches the AI exception,
>>
>> „Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.“
>
> Yes, and that's why we should strive for simplicity if we are to have
> exceptions. If you cannot convince me with the prompt that your change
> is mechanical/non-creative, don't even bother making complicated and
> probably wrong legal arguments.
>
> Paying a certain price upfront (i.e., now) is fine, but in the long term
> the maintainer's job wrt AI should be and remain easy. There has to be
> a cost, but then the same would be true with any policy other than
> "don't ask, don't tell"---including zero tolerance.
Yes.
Cost is fine when the benefits are worth it.
Maintainer bandwidth is precious. But it's not infiniyely precious :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-10 17:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-08 6:35 [PATCH 0/6] tracetool: add mypy --strict checking [AI discussion ahead!] Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-08 6:35 ` [PATCH 1/6] tracetool: rename variable with conflicting types Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-08 9:27 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-10-08 18:06 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-10-08 6:35 ` [PATCH 2/6] tracetool: apply isort and add check Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-08 9:29 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-10-08 17:58 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-10-09 7:52 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-10-09 8:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-09 8:58 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-10-09 11:26 ` Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-09 12:05 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-10-09 7:58 ` Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-08 6:35 ` [PATCH 3/6] tracetool: "import annotations" Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-08 9:31 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-10-08 18:06 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-10-08 6:35 ` [PATCH 4/6] tracetool: add type annotations Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-08 18:09 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-10-08 6:35 ` [PATCH 5/6] tracetool: complete typing annotations Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-08 18:10 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-10-08 6:35 ` [PATCH 6/6] tracetool: add typing checks to "make -C python check" Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-08 9:32 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-10-08 18:12 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-10-08 7:18 ` [PATCH 0/6] tracetool: add mypy --strict checking [AI discussion ahead!] Markus Armbruster
2025-10-08 10:34 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-10-10 12:38 ` Markus Armbruster
2025-10-10 13:49 ` Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-10 17:41 ` Markus Armbruster [this message]
2025-10-08 10:40 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-10-08 17:23 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-10-08 17:41 ` Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-14 19:02 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87wm52ejsj.fsf@pond.sub.org \
--to=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=jsnow@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=mads@ynddal.dk \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.