Re: [PATCH 1/4] docs/devel: relax policy on AI-generated contributions

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 10:22:28AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > Until now QEMU's code provenance policy declined any contribution
> > believed to include or derive from AI-generated content.  A blanket ban
> > was easy to maintain while LLM output was rarely usable on its own, but
> > as the tools improved an absolute prohibition has become harder to
> > justify and enforce.
> <snip>
> > +Commit messages for AI-assisted changes
> > +'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> > +
> > +In order to disclose your usage of AI/LLM tools, add an ``AI-used-for:``
> > +line before the :ref:`Signed-off-by <code-provenance>` line.  The trailer
> > +is both a reminder of your DCO obligations and a guide to reviewers.  The
> > +text is one or more of ``code``, ``tests``, ``docs``, ``research``, possibly
> > +followed by an explanation in parentheses:
> > +
> > +.. 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.
> 
> While experimenting with these tags I had done a patches with:
> 
>   AI-used-for: created qtest boilerplate based on bug report
>   AI-used-for: importing and validating test case
>   AI-used-for: initial prototype changes
>   AI-used-for: initial draft of test
>   AI-used-for: fetch issue, apply proposed patch, verify build and qtests
> 
> Of the last one I expect "fetch issue, apply proposed patch, verify
> build" is superfluous as its really just automation but the converting a
> bug test case into a proper qtest case is worth flagging as it is a
> transformation worth getting called out?

IMHO "AI-used-for"  only needs to call out things that directly resulted
in code being authored, so I'd agree that the last one is out of scope.

For the others, my benchmark would be, if a reviewer points out a mistake
in the patch, is the contributor going to want to blame the AI. If so,
then the use of AI should have been disclosed.

They shouldn't be blaming the AI anyway, as they need to take responsibility
for explaining all decisions, but that's a tangent :-)

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com       ~~        https://hachyderm.io/@berrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org          ~~          https://entangle-photo.org :|
|: https://pixelfed.art/berrange   ~~    https://fstop138.berrange.com :|