Re: [BUG] hw/xen: features published after InitWait since 240cc11369fc

[Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 11 Sept 2026 at 15:39, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I wasn't *actually* setting out to comment on the AI policy today  — in
> fact I didn't really have a strong opinion on it. I spend enough of my
> life tilting at windmills *intentionally*; this wasn't meant to be one
> of them.
>
> Letting the tool reply in its own voice and pretending I was held
> hostage was mostly meant as a joke, as *well* as being the only way I
> was going to look at that bug today (it would have taken me a *long*
> time to do all that testing of old and new failure modes, finding the
> net device path that *does* reproduce it locally, fixing the other
> problem with that, and finally confirming that it all works).

Even our current strict AI policy is fine with using them as tools
to help in debugging, testing, and so on. What I am complaining
about is not that you did that, but that you posted an enormous
long apparently unedited pile of output from the LLM, rather than
using it to do the work and then posting your conclusions. That
is asking readers of the thread to do a lot of work for you
(i.e. wading through the huge email to figure out whether the LLM
output is right, wrong or irrelevant).

> But our policies should be based on actual data and the holistic
> outcomes they achieve, and this is just data which we can take into
> account on one side of the balance, even if the other side remains more
> compelling.

Yes. I view that email as pretty strong data for 'even a policy
shift which says "we're OK with accepting some kinds of AI
generated code" should still be pretty strong on "text intended
for humans to read (docs, commit messages, mailing list posts, etc)
should be written by humans"'. I think that review commentary on
Paolo's RFC about a less strict policy tended to be in that direction,
so I don't think I'm completely out on a limb here.

thanks
-- PMM