Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Other LLM-related topics - tags, newcomers, etc

On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 10:32:28AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 04:24:15PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > I'd go so far as to say that we DON'T want to feed unfiltered LKML archives
> > > into the model -- we probably want to lean on the work done by the cregit
> > > folks to identify patch sets that were actually accepted and then work
> > > backwards, creating a subset of LKML that resulted in accepted contributions.
> > 
> > I'm not an LLM person....
> > 
> > Is there no value in looking at patches which got rejected, and why
> > they got rejected, as a template what not to do?
> 
> There is, but this is part of the "tuning" bit that I said would be needed and
> this would require significant amounts of work.

O.K. So there might be some low hanging fruit. netdev makes use of a
bot reading replies to patches looking for 'pw-bot: <status>' in the
message. If it sees status as 'changes-requested' or 'cr' it drops the
patchset from our CI, because we expect the submitter to make a
change.

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-netdev.html#updating-patch-status

So these would make good training for the negative side, don't do
this.

	Andrew