José E. Marchesi wrote: > I would personally reject such a patch unless it is entirely legally > insignificant.
Yes, that's essentially what we do here, by the Gnulib LLM policy https://gitweb.git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=blob;f=HACKING;h=72c9895c0f407a28f5c5c82b0173ccf6e89b4429;hb=HEAD#l226 . > I would avoid using Co-authored-by this way, and use Assisted-by (or > similar) instead. I agree. And still, even Assisted-by: Claude or Helped-by: Claude are ambiguous, because it does not tell what amount of code came from the LLM. To help current and future evaluations of such a patch, it would be useful if the submitter states — either in the git commit message or in the mailing list post — explicitly: "I used LLM 'Claude'. The output of the LLM was textual only, no code. (I ensured this by requesting no code, in my prompt.) I produced the code contained in this patch myself." Bruno
