From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from complex.crustytoothpaste.net (complex.crustytoothpaste.net [172.105.7.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA64B1F1537 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2026 00:31:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=172.105.7.114 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785717088; cv=none; b=szEdiv5JbkYO+nx9LBN4zPhAuhruVU4h2mu9yodJHL9/8s+oP95VgC3aNgN0M7JVTFe26OUNroNNCrPqINnrWD4lHqmaORO8KASy038CnOxA/Pf8OkhaIuTFJyqALxjQHdjT3hRAdDJo68oy0FH40WnwLVlEDK1mwLtHrSTS+lI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785717088; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XGSQv03GeuiQo+jhTHETjXycNajXPy4bol2ffjCDUP0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lbQWnzLRj8bbevXugN8y5XcTXFoqESS1hcGSG1wbfkxjX6OTtATVt7gKVxRJH5Kago2FaeF6/XpLTZGpLGYUWeV3nBF5U7lexWAjXPHhEXi0Zrq02bpTqwp5C7QPwi5FjyATYls9M0ouqSHjqoEeKaVAimHwHUDiqSAIHGSPHFI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=crustytoothpaste.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=crustytoothpaste.net; dkim=pass (3072-bit key) header.d=crustytoothpaste.net header.i=@crustytoothpaste.net header.b=uZoMWEnH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=172.105.7.114 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=crustytoothpaste.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=crustytoothpaste.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (3072-bit key) header.d=crustytoothpaste.net header.i=@crustytoothpaste.net header.b="uZoMWEnH" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crustytoothpaste.net; s=default; t=1785717084; bh=XGSQv03GeuiQo+jhTHETjXycNajXPy4bol2ffjCDUP0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Date:To:CC: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=uZoMWEnHyKq4Im1d/J96MiwpJ1yskWHvnkKAuqWxkFN7Exaiit3e8RsLrRqTZWbo7 usZmdlS7s9vAtBl1bUJAs/y8u7xlsq4Mo5okcEA4vY9a0zl5JzpPByi2k/mM/s5Mcz vZ80CrK8wBXAZyu3/pxOHWEQm0HRQB8OYsfBUL+KvbWy8iI59jdOVWqGOvLnYM+Thl CVpTi7y2jCibWesw3q/tNRuVSf4KW1KeHV89rlcMoTnybs5+0Tdk+P8ygBsVdlIjWn LrWfWridMg9XF1FwnruYvy54eZIe7PQAtLTSETRNKg+sz8goU3cVrKvwXMoX7IWwii 1i+vo4rTHgdgPMocxgvCxoKdI8nMNn5nLmWON+Vy1Xg1j1gSjN6pl9B4dPxJU995U6 7v+rG5RlZwwN48Oq2kt+TKHvqWG1HD2aoL7Fmc2PKZkN1nSu3kVr/kBDknki9tgj/o SEWRKxnUnKE9BN1YKPEl3xFuLJDWnPvkIoRpstCOSnql/Rqpjbx Received: from fruit.crustytoothpaste.net (unknown [IPv6:2607:f2c0:f00f:f901:117f:c26e:50ca:6746]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by complex.crustytoothpaste.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88B10200C4; Mon, 3 Aug 2026 00:31:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 00:31:23 +0000 From: "brian m. carlson" To: Arijit Banerjee Cc: Junio C Hamano , Arijit Banerjee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Tan , Patrick Steinhardt , Arijit Banerjee Subject: Re: [PATCH] index-pack: speed up promisor link recording Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: "brian m. carlson" , Arijit Banerjee , Junio C Hamano , Arijit Banerjee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Tan , Patrick Steinhardt , Arijit Banerjee References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eqBhlv20JJinRjet" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.4.1 (2026-07-04) --eqBhlv20JJinRjet Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [please avoid top-posting] On 2026-08-02 at 22:54:27, Arijit Banerjee wrote: > Maybe software can ship experimental versions which is more indulging > towards AI generated patches? Brave users get to try the features and they > can baked into stable releases once there's enough soak time. >=20 > I have been holding onto my patch around hardware acceleration for SHA1-DC > :) The rationale, as Junio said, is based on the Developer's Certificate of Origin. That is a legal statement that a person has the legal right to contribute those changes under the license and if they make a false or misleading statement to that effect, they are responsible=E2=80=94legally a= nd otherwise=E2=80=94for it. Considering the extensive litigation over LLM output at the moment, I don't think anyone can clearly make that assertion. Most of the arguments I've heard are that it's fair use, which is a U.S. legal concept. That does not exist in Canada or the U.K., where there is fair dealing, which is much more restricted. If Company X includes LLM-generated code in their proprietary product and it's found to be infringing in say, Germany, then they can simply not distribute their code in Germany. Git cannot do that: it's distributed in Linux distributions around the planet, even in countries subject to sanctions, such as Russia[0]. We must comply with the license and the law everywhere in every country or we risk liability for our contributors and distributors. I, for one, am not willing to be sued over this project and the project does not have the financial means to deal with extensive litigation. There are also concerns about the quality of the code and whether submitters adequately understand the code well enough to have evaluated and reviewed it thoroughly. It's well known that when creating code becomes cheap, the burden shifts to review and review becomes extremely important. That has been seen in lots of places, but we are an open source project and we can't force contributors to do review like a company can. As Junio says, we already have trouble getting reviews through and we don't want to make the problem worse. LLM-generated content also has a negative quality reputation (see the reaction to AI content in video games and books for an example) and while all software has bugs, I appreciate the reputation that Git has for quality and wish to retain that. Those alone are reason enough for the policy, but there are other concerns about the environmental impact, the impact on electricity and hardware prices, the ethics of incorporating open source code without so much as a credit[1], and a lot more. So I don't think it's likely we're going to accept nontrivial LLM-generated content in any capacity anytime soon and I don't think trying to argue this or persuade us to accept it is going to be productive or well received. Of course, anyone can distribute their own fork of Git with additional patches if they prefer, but we won't include them. [0] Debian, which distributes Git, has mirrors in Russia and Belarus: https://www.debian.org/mirror/list [1] For instance, as a member of ACM, I have to follow =C2=A7 1.5 (Respect the work required to produce new ideas, inventions, creative works, and computing artifacts) of the Code of Ethics: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics. --=20 brian m. carlson (they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA --eqBhlv20JJinRjet Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wr0EABYKAG8Fgmpv4VoJEHwMSWKIh6KBRxQAAAAAAB4AIHNhbHRAbm90YXRpb25z LnNlcXVvaWEtcGdwLm9yZ1/7wDmaGuYSFcfBMc50yEuNphv/oNGBauD3mBKhcw+e FiEECCzmip28ZfuD0cORfAxJYoiHooEAAJBkAP9LwfBWlzaSdmv1k1vKoo98RX0J OHRodUyRPB24Uz5vgwD/Xatcm08/dxS8MKvhTNMaHd6a4fqDGWQOB6JBLXGhGgs= =VvRm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eqBhlv20JJinRjet--