On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 04:09:14PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > I think as a global policy this has ran its course. > > > > I'm honestly not sure why you sent this patch in the first place if you're > > simply going to ignore it (+ people's opinions) anyway :) > > I sent an RFC patch for the minimal acceptable change in my opinion. It > turns out that the majority of people on here seem to prefer the removal > that I mentioned as an alternative in the commit message instead and it > already happens in practice.
I made arguments as to why I felt tags were useful, linking to actual series, etc. and I feel it'd be healthier if you would respond to those points rather than vox populi. But I guess the ship has sailed. There's been about 1,000 Assisted-by tags since this doc was introduced at the end of December 2025, which is small (~2% of all patches) and clearly majorly underestimates the actual numbers, so 'it already happens in practice' seems a bit... inaccurate? I also think there's a lot more frustration in 'it does nothing to prevent the flood of unacked AI slop' in the responses here, which is totally understandable. But I think people are missing the fact it makes it easier to deal with those instances where people do ack it. It's imperfect, it shouldn't advertise models, but it's still got actual use. If you were looking for 'do people have a use for this', then yes, we do. > > > I'll still send a patch to link the apparently redundant AI doc to the > > generated > > tooling doc because for those who do pay attention it's silly that they're > > not > > connected. > > This on the other hand seems a bit strange given the direction of this > discussion. > I don't understand that at all. The coding assistants document is not being deleted, and if you read https://docs.kernel.org/process/generated-content.html you can see it doesn't enforce tags. It makes reasonable points that from the sounds of it you don't disagree with? So why on earth wouldn't we link the two? Thanks, Lorenzo
