On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 11:16:19AM +0100, Elia Pinto wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 12:44:40PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
[snip]
quoted
These paragraphs very much read like AI to me. I would appreciate a
human touch, also to demonstrate that a human was involved between us
and the AI that tries to understand what was done.
You're completely right. I used AI tooling to help draft that commit
message, and it definitely shows. Fair cop.
To clarify my involvement: I review the code, check the cases, run the
tests, and take full responsibility for what gets submitted. But the
wording here missed the mark. For v3 I rewrote the message myself,
keeping it much shorter, focusing on a single example (lone LFs), and
dropping the heavy-handed explanations.
Sorry, but is this reply to my ask to proof read what AI generates and
make it sound less AI generated repeating the _exact same thing_ that I
just asked you to change?
To put it bluntly: behaviour like this is what will make me ignore your
patch series altogether going forward. It is frustrating to me, and I
only have limited time to spend on reviews. So I will much rather spend
my own time on patches where I don't feel like I'm talking to a meat
proxy, because I'm a (somewhat) social creature that prefers to talk to
humans.
So please reevaluate what you are doing here.
Patrick