From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A270CCA476 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 17:45:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1v7H86-00016q-Fl; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 13:42:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1v7H7x-0000zS-0X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 13:42:01 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1v7H7h-0007ft-CF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 13:41:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1760118100; 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=mcOCZF4iQdr5vRNCaRgMPxxx6qhYEJ/LdPzmEp0yuVk=; b=bMppOTSFKJG0yeiDrZNydmTR1bIpmCizcccroYzB58PeFiZFbiwY17a1IDqS7ecKvjMJ1K oWxVg3AzdiVZNjTkDJhVBqtzzs7zOk9IZHVovEoUYBeQ5N4Uw9NlwdeorVPSmlYqo3IbC5 DLhdoP13XyTCMLbybbHbs+uHHc1Caos= Received: from mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-665-q6ZBCQhrOrKuIEh0C1zAwA-1; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 13:41:37 -0400 X-MC-Unique: q6ZBCQhrOrKuIEh0C1zAwA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: q6ZBCQhrOrKuIEh0C1zAwA_1760118096 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-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D58931800357; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 17:41:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.45.242.6]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73BFB3000387; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 17:41:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ACFC521E6A27; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 19:41:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang=C3=A9?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , John Snow , Kevin Wolf , Peter Maydell , Stefan Hajnoczi , Mads Ynddal Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] tracetool: add mypy --strict checking [AI discussion ahead!] In-Reply-To: <12439b02-9273-41b3-85f3-c98e319194ec@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Fri, 10 Oct 2025 15:49:28 +0200") References: <20251008063546.376603-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <87ikgpn9oz.fsf@pond.sub.org> <87cy6vhqz2.fsf@pond.sub.org> <12439b02-9273-41b3-85f3-c98e319194ec@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 19:41:32 +0200 Message-ID: <87wm52ejsj.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) 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=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -24 X-Spam_score: -2.5 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.441, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Paolo Bonzini 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. >>=20 >> We can only try to approximate it from the legal side. >> The tighter we try to approximate, the more risk we take on. >>=20 >> 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=20 > would consider a mechanical change. I would expect, for most cases,=20 > that "include the prompt in the commit message" and the boringness of=20 > the change are together already a satisfactory explanation. > > At the same time, I decided to try with a more complex change to 1)=20 > avoid a slippery slope; it's easier to do so if you look at the hard=20 > cases from the beginning, and Daniel did that very, very well; 2) probe=20 > the limitations of the tool and ascertain if it's even worthwhile having= =20 > 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, >>=20 >> =E2=80=9ELibenter homines id quod volunt credunt.=E2=80=9C > > Yes, and that's why we should strive for simplicity if we are to have=20 > exceptions. If you cannot convince me with the prompt that your change=20 > is mechanical/non-creative, don't even bother making complicated and=20 > probably wrong legal arguments. > > Paying a certain price upfront (i.e., now) is fine, but in the long term= =20 > the maintainer's job wrt AI should be and remain easy. There has to be=20 > a cost, but then the same would be true with any policy other than=20 > "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 :)