Re: Policy on use of LLM tools and bug fixes

On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 11:15 AM Eric Botcazou <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > To this aim, our corporate policy mandates inclusion of prompts in
> > commits containing LLM output (together with tool name and version).
>
> That certainly should not preempt the need to provide a description, detailed
> for complex changes if need be, of the change in the commit log, written for
> human beings, instead of only a prompt jargon that will become obsolete in a
> few months.

Maybe we should also require the commit message (not necessarily the
ChangeLog part) to be written _by_ a human, as we should require
a submitter of a LLM assisted/written patch has a thorough understanding
of what the patch does and of the changes to the underlying code.

It should not be on the burden of the reviewer to decipher what the LLM
does and to stand in for the task to decipher and verify the LLMs doing.
But instead there should be a clear sign the submitter already attempted
to do that.  Otherwise I fear I'll use any assisted-by tag for review
prioritization...

Richard.

>
> --
> Eric Botcazou
>
>