Re: [PATCH] docs: remove Assisted-by references

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 04:42:46PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> +cc the participants from that thread FYI. The original patch is at [2].
> 
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 at 12:05:06PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 09/10/2026 10:31, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > The Maintainers Summit reached consensus to deprecate the Assisted-by
> > > tag. Remove the documentation requiring it.
> >
> > Please provide here some sort of arguments used in that summit
> > consensus/discussion. This basically reverts/changes previous consensus
> > [1], which is fine itself, but it lacks reasoning.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/2026070224-unholy-commode-cf45@gregkh/
> 
> Thanks for linking that! It is important to ack previous discussion on
> this. Also LWN article is up now at [3].
> 
> I'm less bothered than you might think by this change.
> 
> The tag's useful for push back on review,

That's the point I raised during the maintainer summit. It's actually
the *absence* of a tag that helps me push back on review. It allows me
to ask submitters if they forgot to add the tag, and in many cases (so
far) they simply don't reply.

I'm not happy removing the tag without adding another mechanism for
required disclosure. Without that, I can foresee submitters pushing back
on the question.

I agree that, for my use cases, recording the tag in the git log isn't
useful. We discussed the option of requiring it in the cover letter or
below the scissors line. That would be my preference, but few people
expressed support for it.

> but the only long-term strategy for
> slop is to aggressively ignore it.
> 
> Linus has made that clear that that's fine.
> 
> What kills the project is having 1,000 slop submissions that 2 or 3 people have
> to do something with.
> 
> The only long-term solution to that is to hit mark read 1,000 times :)
> 
> Sasha - maybe worth linking the LWN article now it's up in the commit message
> and adding a little more detail around the decision?
> 
> Otherwise LGTM:
> 
> Acked-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> 
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo
> 
> [2]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261009083137.3-1-sashal@kernel.org/
> [3]:https://lwn.net/Articles/1099594/

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart