On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 11:21:28AM +0200, Ellie wrote: > On 7/1/26 5:54 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: > > I remain very confused by our coding assistant contribution guidelines. > > I'm going to be a bit polemic now but this seriously in good faith. > > > > Why precisely do we require all this detailed information about what > > specific coding assistant was used? > > > > I find it very irritating that our git history has effectively started > > to function a bit like a free advertising platform for a bunch of AI > > companies and their proprietary agents and models. > > > > And it reamins unclear to me what exactly we do get out of this detailed > > information: Do we want to run statistical analysis on what agent and > > model is used the most and publish that on LWN at some point? > > > > I acknowledge that my stance is even more radical: imho we would just > > stop it with any disclosure requirements completely. > > Sorry to drop in as a relatively uninformed person, but it seems like > the following mails would be relevant for that discussion: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/
Your messages got completely ignored for a month and a half. Most developers (including myself) don't read LKML due to the high traffic, but I'm still surprised by the complete lack of reply. Maybe CC'ing the [email protected] mailing list would have helped ? > If LLM code were no longer committed to the kernel, which wouldn't > exclude using an LLM to pinpoint problem spots and security bugs as long > as it's not used to produce the fix itself, then the commits also would > no longer need an attribution. That's absolutely right, and I would welcome that outcome. At this point I don't think I'm talking for the majority though :-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
