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 lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.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 B07C0C982F0 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 12:45:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x8dOF-00017p-Fo; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 08:45:01 -0400 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 1x8dNg-0000pr-KO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 08:44:35 -0400 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 1x8dNe-0003rj-49 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 08:44:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1789994659; h=from:from:reply-to: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=ieiJte86dJPr4H5nWBZJAfk2w7Y4dzXFX1S0YuFeB1w=; b=RaUxqD/eJXLsWeV9vwxKhcHy+ow0oOSaFig+Swl1n6wms6QydDXsWVJBTSg3PrDTU3waCp 5bDXtl32B5T1JR6jpBmN7sDNPjpcVBb3vACyHARkmG0eCHiZYte2KbR0pQT7qF0gODfFtk byAaue57CczLUo2SYvBG5e31Zpq9Cas= 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-662-Mt_EcyUgMrqVoNYEQDOhKA-1; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 08:44:17 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Mt_EcyUgMrqVoNYEQDOhKA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: Mt_EcyUgMrqVoNYEQDOhKA_1789994656 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 92F2F1955EA0; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 12:44:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (headnet03.pony-001.prod.iad2.dc.redhat.com [10.2.32.114]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8B29300106B; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 12:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 13:44:09 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , qemu-devel , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Alistair Francis , BALATON Zoltan , Fabiano Rosas , Kevin Wolf , Peter Maydell , Warner Losh , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] AGENTS.md: let agents know what the participation rules are Message-ID: References: <20260921075251.12831-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20260921075251.12831-4-pbonzini@redhat.com> <878q4v0wle.fsf@draig.linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.4.0 (2026-06-19) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: 12 X-Spam_score: 1.2 X-Spam_bar: + X-Spam_report: (1.2 / 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 02:12:32PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il lun 21 set 2026, 13:11 Daniel P. Berrangé ha > scritto: > > > > > +### No automated posting > > > > + > > > > +Agents **must not** use any API, CLI, or web UI automation to: > > > > + > > > > +- Interact on the QEMU mailing lists > > > > +- Create, edit, or close **issues ("work items")** > > > > +- Post **comments** on merge requests, issues or commits > > > > +- Open or update **merge requests (MRs)**. QEMU does not use merge > > requests anyway. > > > > + > > > > > > Are we considering project agents (such as the stsquad-bot) exempt from > > > this policy? I'm not sure what a normal agent can do via the API as it > > > wouldn't have the project level access the stsquad-bot needs. > > > > At least a user's agent can likely bulk file work items without elevated > > access privs, as we've seen by the several slop-bombs we've had. > > > > I'd add a footnote for that along the lines of: > > > > 'Official project agents whose code is maintained under > > gitlab.com/qemu-project > > may be exempted from one or more of these rules, at the discretion of > > the QEMU > > project maintainer(s)' > > > > Sure. > > > > +### No AI-written text must reach maintainers > > > > + > > > > +These rules apply when publishing AI-assisted work to GitLab or the > > mailing list: > > > > + > > > > +- **AI-written cover letters and commit messages are banned**. These > > are > > > > + easy to recognize and waste reviewers' time. > > > > +- **AI-generated responses to reviewer comments are banned**. This > > undermines > > > > + the human-to-human interaction fundamental to code review. > > > > +- **AI-written issue ("work item") descriptions or comments are > > banned**. These > > > > + are verbose and waste triagers' time. > > > > + - An exception is made for issues for defects detected by automated > > or > > > > + semi-automated tooling, including fuzzers and LLM-assisted defect > > > > + detection. Such issues must be reviewed by a human before > > creation, > > > > + must be created by a human and communication with maintainers must > > > > + be done by a human, but including the verbatim tool output in the > > > > + issue description is explicitly allowed. > > > > I kind of want to eliminate this exception. IMHO from the bugs we're > > getting, I think human's are often putting very little effort into > > reviewing the tools output, such that it is largely a box ticking > > exercise to claim they've reviewed it. > > > > If we removed the exception, and required humans to write up the > > finding of the fuzzer/detect detection in human language, that > > may do a better job of getting people to engage in more critical > > thinking rather than rubber stamping the tool output. > > > > It would limit the ability of people bulk file 50+ tickets in a day. > > > > I think that's the problem, namely not realizing there's someone on the > other side. > > LLM write-ups are essentially the same as patents, they look like English > but they're not; and the verbosity of the write-ups is sometimes a curse > and sometimes a blessing. There is a tension between having a simple > description of the issue and an unopinionated one. The fix is not always > trivially obvious, and sometimes the "executive summary" from the LLM > points in the wrong direction—I have no expectation that human reporters > will be any better at not misleading me. The difference though is that when I put effort into responding to a wrong executive summary written by the human, it is still potentially a reasonable use of my time as they might learn something from the exchange. Responding to a wrong executive summary from the bot sucks the will to live as you know it won't improve things next time around. > In fact I'd rather like us to introduce an explicit rule that a person/ > > tool must not file more than about 5 tickets in a single day, without > > prior approval from maintainers, so we don't get bombarded at such a > > high rate. > > > > Sure, that's a good idea. Even 5 per month... I wouldn't want to limit organically found bugs quite that low, but for automated bug discovery we need to stem the flow, and set a stronger expectation for the contributor writing a patch and taking responsibility to submit it via qemu-devel. Ideally we would get people sending patches directly to the list without the bug tracker at all, except for security bugs - which needs the security classification work: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2026-09/msg03555.html 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 :|