On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 11:09:37AM +0200, Jori Koolstra wrote: > > > 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.
Yup agreed, however I have had the experience of doing exactly this and then being second-guessed enormously, which was exhausting honestly. So we need total clarity that it's OK to do this. I guess this is partly a subsystem-by-subsystem thing though. > > 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. Yup agreed :) > > > 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. Thanks, Lorenzo
