[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c814bee7-9fac-42b7-af8a-aae0567d6435@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:34:30 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
workflows@...r.kernel.org, josh@...htriplett.org, kees@...nel.org,
konstantin@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@...blig.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent coding assistant configuration to Linux
kernel
On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 05:59:25PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 12:36:25PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > Some sort of a "traffic light" system:
> > 1. Green: the subsystem is happy to receive patches from any source.
> > 2. Yellow: "If you're unfamiliar with the subsystem and using any
> > tooling to generate your patches, please have a reviewed-by from a
> > trusted developer before sending your patch".
> > 3. No tool-generated patches without prior maintainer approval.
> This sounds good, with a default on red. Which would enforce the opt-in
> part.
That's probably a bit much - I suspect we don't want to default block
coccinelle for example. It's going to be very tool and technology
dependent, probably the main thing that's generally applicable is going
to be that people should say if and how they've used tools.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists