On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 07:25:46 -0800 Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> A tag isn't going to capture what we need today. Because the LLM > usage is so variable, it'll be, at best, misleading or, at worst, > totally inaccurate. I've provided several examples of this where the > range of LLM involvement is very low to very high. The prior > discussions have shown that we haven't yet found a sensible way for a > tag to capture that. > > But the common thing everyone appears to agree on is the "show your > work" concept that this patch is trying to capture. I think it's > likely we'll grow a tag eventually, but it isn't something we > understand the context for yet. As a first step, this document is > designed to show the foundational goals for what we want documented. > > Over some time of applying this, we'll start to see common patterns > and repeated descriptions in commit logs. At that point, I think a > tag will be warranted. But right now, we don't generally agree about > what aspects we want a tag to cover. Exactly. My fear was that by adding any new rules (like a tag) will steer this conversation into a never ending bikeshed arguments, which was exactly what we wanted to avoid. Let's have the "tag" conversation at Maintainers Summit and just keep this document as something to describe what we do today. -- Steve
