On 11/14/25 12:08, Luis Chamberlain wrote: ...>> + - What tools were used? > > I really think we should just recommend the user to *consider* using: > > Generated-by > > I've been using it for Coccinelle on Linux for years, and it was not > just me. In other projects, in particular kdevops we started using this > to also be clear about the use of AI tools, and I've found it > instrumental to keep track of how much code *does not use it*.
That sounds like a reasonable enough idea. But I think it's mostly orthogonal to this document. If there were Generated-by documentation in submitting-patches.rst, it would definitely get a special mention here. >> + - The input to the tools you used, like the Coccinelle source script. >> + - If code was largely generated from a single or short set of >> + prompts, include those prompts. > > A long time ago we evaluated the question of using git notes for > coccinelle used input, and the issue back then was we didn't have support > for it I think. But I think that hump is gone? > > If so, would using git notes for prompts be useful in this case as we scale > tooling outside of Coccinelle, like AI prompts? I believe this can be > instrumental for enhancing LLMs as well for fine tuned LLMs for Linux > development. I looked at git notes a bit during the Link: tag discussion. There still seem to be a few humps left, like git needing special configuration not to lose notes on "git commit --amend" or rebases. They seem to be _getting_ there, but they certainly don't seem to be a nice, seamless thing that can easily be put into everyone's existing workflows. > Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <[email protected]> Thanks!
