From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F23DC2877CB for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2025 15:07:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.157 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760281674; cv=none; b=gRgXuwxsqEvEJG53U2ys6JwS1wX1bdG+9Sc4QhpPk7BI8A/3WhgNrG04t87zTUQjPRQFpn9vOvHIlcyRNC2fJtwkynxBr6n7/kKC4TpuWYRxQhyzOulSJcYyjew/+msRNqMee1gd6L/y0fBb78//CTsXfaA9uE4gIn/TwGTr1kY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760281674; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AjFrX75DmLOXfmqITt5cARBuQFnCCCua2klBx8x34zc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SNLT6YJi9epoxQZj8FDVws7oB+yFYeG1HXipAm9q3FWLTvhW8SXYOM+spWbjjfikBv9csg7MLNb99uUOGfesD7ecTyRsLLjDtTIwWYgIMuJR+TSQkVrkM1m1Mfl2A8ZqF6D/s8EUdoXXwiDFJC9ok80etNlbTFd9lLynNGFfOEg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=MSqgmJc4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=UOxwAHZI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.157 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="MSqgmJc4"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="UOxwAHZI" Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2165F140021C; Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:07:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1760281670; x=1760368070; bh=DtKDk/gofi ZCCe3HFvhP0q55DZskTW+XBQTOm7f7Epk=; b=MSqgmJc4rHjf6AaUnMfHKbH8nj Q2dBUdwEddrlEszxGjaHLFA61vpdIKdAULiR/GAWsGcG6Q5PbQ7OKF5Lhx3gl2si Bfyai0QFo/7gPrHKanc+5NQICrapjORcgFCnbnkrJNnAxPOx0iCO6cIPi7venYHc +j5OWs4EmH2dMX/vh4etmQUo/altPapkoZ+8DmCgr+d147DWcUpZe4v/2wUuRpcU izrDdrA7yoSEfswGtz86aWwAGiL+o3DLXpA4+Nq9YWr/80h6slaLApBlnyqmWCVU OvCmYEapCekZLyFj6yp35IXrvF/HoL5kREYqyw9q+LrjY4wfVBEXxsP9IvTA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1760281670; x=1760368070; bh=DtKDk/gofiZCCe3HFvhP0q55DZskTW+XBQT Om7f7Epk=; b=UOxwAHZIXg8OJEiLMNAFqo9lDV/2wZB7OL3eTaYc9A5LY0KD/Jf df4IlE7xpQIy2WBIvvtH+gdM6Zhnl/0dFg3BGyr+e0/+HiEyshJUs1Ntg7vsb1Lf KRfkmPuYk+Ub6i3jS3CU6mCyaPxp2OnJTsDZ21BL8rJXbuPkSMQFxwAgEheagUeB nLq4wJQOO2ROIzGikgdeCEkChxbq8gx4FPf6RDz2m0MLzAbmM+bRP1WD5vSZM7Fp ox4e36b9bVQjV2B+HxhmK4e4wK4YPAbRd+i/ki1fp8fFgcBlap5MbXhbEnldW/nT KMkP/dcLV81N2PAHKdiD/rnIEvX75+SjCag== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggdduudehtdelucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddupdhmohguvgep shhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehnvgifrhgvnhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtph htthhopehsrghnuggrlhhssegtrhhushhthihtohhothhhphgrshhtvgdrnhgvthdprhgt phhtthhopegthhhrihhsthhirghnrdgtohhuuggvrhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtph htthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgvseht thgrhihlohhrrhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehrihgtkhesshhftghonhhsvghrvhgrnh gthidrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehsfhgtohhnshgvrhhvrghntgihrdhorhhg pdhrtghpthhtohepjhhohhgrnhhnvghsrdhstghhihhnuggvlhhinhesghhmgidruggvpd hrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:07:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: "brian m. carlson" , Christian Couder , git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau , Rick Sanders , Git at SFC , Johannes Schindelin , Patrick Steinhardt , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] SubmittingPatches: add section about AI In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Tue, 7 Oct 2025 21:18:12 -0700") References: <20251001140310.527097-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 08:07:47 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Elijah Newren writes: >> ... >> This policy may evolve as AI tools mature and the legal situation is >> clarifed. In the meanwhile, requests for exceptions to this policy will be >> evaluated by the Git project on a case by case basis. To be granted an >> exception, a contributor will need to demonstrate clarity of the license and >> copyright status for the tool's output in relation to its training model and >> code, to the satisfaction of the project maintainers. > > I preferred the version Christian sent, but *if* we end up adopting > some of the QEMU wording, I've got a logistics question: > > Will we grandfather already accepted series, or proactively revert them? Stepping back a bit, can we treat this new guideline element just like any other guidelines in SubmittingPatches and also CodingGuidelines? We have certain rules in our SubmittingPatches and CodingGuidelines to help us not get into trouble in the future. We require the log messages to follow certain style to give them uniformity as otherwise it would become harder to dig the history later to find cause of an issue we are having today, and more importantly what the design parameters were back when the change we are having trouble with was written. We ask people to follow certain style in the code as it would make it more work to understand code if different styles are mixed together without reason. But we also frown upon churning the codebase for the sake of strictly match the prescribed coding style. The rules are mostly to control newly written things so that they do not make our codebase into worse shape than it currently is. When we update a part of our codebase for some reason, other than "there is no particular reason but we want to fix them to match guidelines", we would take existing guideline violations the touched part may have into account, of course. And we find no need in our other non-AI guidelines to say "we grandfather badness that already exists, but we try our best to enforce the guidelines as strictly as possible", and the reason, I think, is because that is implicitly what everybody expects. Should the "We tell you again not to blindly add things with unknown origin, given the recent proliferation of AI coding product" rule be any special and different?