Preparing for releasing v3.0

CHANGELOG++.  Only doc/comment fixes, no code changes in this commit

Author: tobixen

AI-POLICY.md

@@ -25,33 +25,13 @@ rapidly with minimum effort.
 
 So it all boils down to this: Be honest about tool usage!
 
-## Background
-
-The "30 second effort pull request" mentioned above may have value to
-the project, but it's dishonest to not be transparent about it.
-Sometimes, teaching me how to run the tool and integrating it into the
-CI workflow may have a bigger value than the changes provided by the
-tool.
-
-Starting in 2025-11, I've spent quite some time testing Claude.  I'm
-positively surprised, it's doing a much better job than what I had
-expected.  The AI may do things a lot faster, smarter and better than
-a good coder.  Sometimes.  Other times it may spend a lot of "tokens"
-and a long time coming up with sub-optimal or really bad solutions.
-
-Perhaps at some time in the near future the AI will do the developer
-profession completely obsoleted - but as of 2026-02, my experiences is
-that the AI performs best when being "supervised" and "guided" by a
-good coder knowing the project.
-
 ## Bugfixes are (most often) welcome
 
-Over the past month, playing with a "max" subscription with Claude,
-I've made it into a rule that when I stumble upon some weird bug in
-some software or libraries I'm using or dependent on, I always ask
-Claude to analyze the bug, check the outstanding issues in the
-project, either create a new issue or consider if there is anything of
-value to add to an existing issue, and come up with a pull-request.  Being a bit aware of the
+It's fine to ask the AI for help to analyze a bug and create a fix for
+it.  By discovering the bug, reproducing it and testing it you're adding
+real value to the project - but be transparent about AI usage and I
+expect that you will not break down and cry if I decide to reject the code
+changes.
 
 ## General rules
 
@@ -61,40 +41,26 @@ value to add to an existing issue, and come up with a pull-request.  Being a bit
   it will be needed to add more requirements to the Contributors
   Guidelines.
 
-* **YOU should add value to the project**. If your contribution
-  consists of nothing else than using a tool on the code and
-  submitting the resulting code, then the value is coming from the
-  tool and not from you.  I could probably have used the tool myself.
-  Ok, so you may have done some research, found the tool, installed it
-  locally, maybe paid money for a subscription, for sure there is some
-  value in that - but if you end up as a messenger copying my comments
-  to some AI tools and copying the answer back again - then you're not
-  delivering value anymore, then it would be better if the AI tool
-  itself would be delivering the pull request and responding to my
-  comments.
+* **YOU should add value to the project**. If you prompt the AI to
+  "look through the issues for this project, find some
+  low-hanging-fruit, fix the issue and send a PR", then it's Claude
+  and not you delivering value.  I can run the same prompt myself, and
+  it would cost me less effort than to review your contribution.
 
-* **YOU should look through and understand the changes**.  The change
+* **YOU ought to understand the changes**.  The change
   goes into the project attributed to your name (or at least github
-  handle), so I do expect you to at least understand the change you're
+  handle), so it would be nice if you understand the change you're
   proposing.
 
-* **Transparency** is important.  Ok, so a lot of tools may have been
-  used while writing the pull request. I don't need to know what
-  editor you're using, the version of git or the color of the T-shirt
-  you're wearing.  However, if significant part of the changes (and/or
-  value of the pull request) was generated by some tool or by some AI,
-  then that should be informed about.  Say, you ran `ruff` on the code
-  and found some imporant things that should be changed, even if those
-  things are manually changed significant parts of the value of the
-  pull request comes from ruff.  Do not write "I found this issue and
-  here is a fix", but rather "I ran the ruff tool on the code, found
-  this issue, and here is the fix".  If some AI was used for
-  generating significant parts of the code changs, then it should be
-  informed about both in the pull request itself and in the git commit
-  message.  The most common way to do this is to add "Assisted-by:
-  (name of AI-tool)" at the end of the message.  Claude seems to sign
-  off with `Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>` when it's
-  doing commits, that's also OK.
+* **Transparency** is important.  I don't care about your full
+  tool-chain, but if a significant part of the value in the pull
+  request was generated by tools, then it's relevant.  Do not write "I
+  found this issue and here is a fix", but rather "I ran the ruff tool
+  on the code, found this issue, and here is the fix".  If the AI was
+  fixing a bug for you, then write in the pull request that "this code
+  was AI-generated and haven't been thoroughly reviewed by me".
+  Commit message should end with "Assisted-by: (name of tool)",
+  alternatively i.e. `Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>`
 
 * **YOU** should be ready to follow up and respond to feedback and
   questions on the contribution.  If you're letting the AI do this for