On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 01:51:10PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 7/2/26 12:04, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > (thanks for the cc-!) > > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 09:46:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > >> On 7/2/26 09:27, Christian Brauner wrote: > >>> > >>> I think we should just drop any attribution as a general kernel-wide > >>> rule and let subsystems require them as needed. Then you can have all > >>> the complexity in mm for this that you think is needed for your > >>> workflow to function. This is precisely what the subsystem profiles are > >>> for. So maybe just add: > > > > A single comment is complexity? > > I think Christian meant more elaborate rules. More than just "If you used > LLMs, > disclose how you used them."
Yes. I'm going to follow netdev and start dropping those tags from the changelog completely too. After speaking to some bpf maintainers they also don't use the tag. So I can safely assume that 3 large subsystems don't bother with it. So seems to me that such requirements should just move into the subsystem profiles. I think as a global policy this has ran its course. > > And is it really that egregious to include a tag? You can ignore it if you > > don't > > care. > > I hate the current tags as they are. The question I am asking myself: assume > we > stop using the Assisted-by for LLM stuff. What to do with the other tools? Why > are LLMs suddenly no longer a tool to mention there. Tbh, I think that's equally pointless. There are also very few instances of non-AI attribution with Assisted-by. If the tool mattered to what was done significantly then it should just be disclosed in an appropriate paragraph in the commit message. The tag itself is imho equally useless for this. I really don't need to know that you used grep or git-sed or tcpdump and it certainly doesn't need to spam the trailers.
