Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 10:39:24AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 11:25:57 +0000
> Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't really read that as grumpy, I understand wanting to be agreeable
> > > > but sometimes it's appropriate to be emphatic, which is the entire purpose
> > > > of this amendment.
> > > >
> > > > Taking into account Jens's input too:
> > > >
> > > > +If tools permit you to generate series automatically, expect
> > > > +additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated.
> > > > +
> > > > +As with the output of any tooling, the result maybe incorrect or
> > > > +inappropriate, so you are expected to understand and to be able to defend
> > > > +everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, then don't submit the
> > > > +resulting changes.
> > > > +
> > > > +If you do so anyway, maintainers are entitled to reject your series without
> > > > +detailed review.
>
> I like it.

Hmm, you like my version but then below argue against every point I make in
favour of it? I'm confused?

Did you mean to say you liked a suggested other revision or... really this
one? :)

If so and Dave likes it too then LGTM, pending any Linus/other veto.

For the rest of your email - a lawyer would say 'asked and answered'. I've
responded to every point of yours there about 3 times apiece across the
thread and I don't think it's a good use of time to loop around on things!

Cheers, Lorenzo