> Op 02-07-2026 10:44 CEST schreef Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <[email protected]>: > > > On 7/2/26 10:12, Jori Koolstra wrote: > > Ah, I still reigniting this discussion again :) > > > > What about a combination of what David and Jeff say? The whole point > > seems to me that the salient information is not that an LLM was used (or > > are we going to tag Sashiko as well or any other LLM-based code review > > tool?), but what is was used to do. This information may be relevant for > > how the review is approached. The latter should perhaps only be in the > > cover letter and then we can drop the assisted-by tags altogether. > > > > The question about enforcement remains. > > It's not possible to enforce it. People can deny it if the tag is missing > and you confront them and even though the submission has many signs of being > obviously LLM, there is no definite proof. We've seen (likely, as there's no > proof!) that happen in mm. >
Maintainers should be free to ignore what they perceive as slop without needing to defend that call. Reputation can be gained by submitting useful work or being present in the community, attending conferences, giving talks, etc. I am not saying that we should be harsh on beginning contributors (or I would have to count myself out as well), but they should be as free as possible to only invest their time in the project and people that may become involved in the community. And that call is up to them. I try to review fix-up patches of first-time contributors, but if it reeks of AI I don't bother. We have the same policy in the kernel mentorship program, we invest time to help people get involved with the community and kernel, not to let someone strike "kernel contributor" of their list. The whole point is not that most of this clean-up work is super useful (and indeed an LLM can do it), but to let someone feel excited about contributing and maybe getting them to to stick around. > Such situation then penalizes those who disclose so obviously they won't. We > should drop the tag and instead think how we can empower maintainers to be > able to use their own judgment and deprioritize dealing with what they > perceive as LLM slop, without fearing consequences of not being properly > responsible etc, and not rely on any non-enforceable tags for that.
