Re: [PATCH v2] docs/devel: relax policy on AI-generated contributions

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 17.06.2026 um 10:49 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 10:38:55AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 16.06.2026 um 19:06 hat Christian Borntraeger geschrieben:
> > > Am 29.05.26 um 11:46 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> > > > -Exceptions do not remove the need for authors to comply with all other
> > > > -requirements for contribution.  In particular, the "Signed-off-by"
> > > > -label in a patch submission is a statement that the author takes
> > > > -responsibility for the entire contents of the patch, including any parts
> > > > -that were generated or assisted by AI tools or other tools.
> > > > +.. code-block:: none
> > > > +
> > > > +     AI-used-for: tests, docs
> > > > +     AI-used-for: code
> > > > +     AI-used-for: code (refactoring)
> > > > +     AI-used-for: code (prototype)
> > > > +     AI-used-for: research
> > > > +
> > > > +``AI-used-for`` should not be included for "background" usage such as
> > > > +autocomplete or obtaining a pre-review of the patch.
> > > 
> > > So what about using AI for security scanning? So how do we want to treat
> > > a patch from a human that is based on an AI report.
> > > And if ok, would we then add something like
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Claude, chatgpt whatever?
> > 
> > I think it's effectively the same as Coverity, which we don't
> > acknowledge with a Reported-by tag, though we often mention it in the
> > commit message text. The same practice would make sense to me here.
> > 
> > (Though of course for Coverity, we have the CID, which obviously doesn't
> > exist for things found with a one-off LLM run, so there is some
> > difference there.)
> 
> Incidentally does any ever find the CID to be useful in the commit
> message ?

I've occasionally looked it up during review, but not sure if I ever
made use of the permanent record in the git history.

Kevin