Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution

[Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 04:27:55AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 05:54:48PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Assisted-by: LLM
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > Assisted-by: Coding Assistant
> 
> I think what is more relevant is what assistance there was.  If the
> code was generated by an LLM we should plain out reject it out of
> copyright grounds.  If it was used for validation or ideas: who
> care?
> 
> I.e. do we need this at all except as a guard against vibe code junk
> that pull in other copyrighted material?  And do we really rely on
> a tag instead of detecting it by the usual signs?

I don't think this work at all as a guard for vibe code junk. My
experience recently is receiving broken patches clearly LLM generated
without no tag at all.
Some functional patches clearly generated by LLM without tags where I
need to go to the developer and tell to add the proper tags.
And yet some patches that seem functional but broken details buried in
200 line commit descriptions that we've all need to spend time reading.

I'd vote for dropping the tags too, they have been for me at least just
a burden trying to identify if whoever wrote a patch used a LLM to
generate it and didn't add the tag.

I think it was a nice try but didn't prove to be useful at the end (at
least not for me).

Cheers.