Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution

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

On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 07:42:35AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 09:30:28AM -0500, Greg KH wrote:
> > > So clarifying there that a "Assisted-by: LLM" is also good enough would make
> > > sense if we agree on that.
> > 
> > If we all agree on that, I'm saying that _I_ don't care, but others
> > might.
> 
> I agree that requiring the model name is not a good idea, because some
> developers might be using unreleased products where the name itself
> might not be public.  So allowing the version number of the LLM to be
> elided would be a good change.
> 
> I'll also note that it's starting to be the case where tool is
> actually quite relevant.  So it's not just about the LLM Model, but
> whether you're using Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, or Shahiko.  You
> can use the tool or the harness with different models.
> 
> So whether the tag is:
> 
> Assisted-By: OpenCode:Gemini 3.5 Pro
> Assisted-By: Claude Code
> Assisted-By: LLM
> 
> I'd be fine with reviewing patches with any of the above.  However, to
> me that's actually not the most interesting part.  See below....
> 
> > For me, the info after "Assisted-by:" doesn't matter, it's the first
> > part.
> 
> For me, what I care most about is *how* the LLM was used.  For
> example, if someone just used the output of Sashiko to fix a problem
> in their commit, that's one kind of "Assisted-by".  If Sahsiko
> identifies a pre-existing bug, and the developer addes a patch to the
> patch series, or creates a new patch series, that's a different kind
> of "Assisted-by".  A third kind of "Assisted-by" might include asking
> the LLM to create a Coccinelle semantic patches (because I'm not smart
> enough to create semantic patches).
> 
> And of course, all of this is quite different from the stereotypical
> "vibe coding" where the LLM generates thousands of lines of code which
> the human doesn't understand before sending the pull request.  :-)
> 
> So for me, adding something after a #-sign comment explaning how the
> LLM was used would be very useful.
> 
> > > My kids should clean up their room; doesn't work.
> > 
> > But, if you notice that your kids didn't clean up their room, and you
> > had told them to, you can then talk to them about doing it properly
> > based on what they are supposed to be doing.
> 
> Another metaphor might be that people shouldn't try to evade paying
> their taxes; merely passing a law saying they have to file correct tax
> returns doesn't guarantee this.  But it was specifically the law
> against tax evasion is how US Law Enforcement arrested the Chicago mob
> boss Al Capone.
> 
> Just because some people might lie doesn't mean that we shouldn't
> bother to ask everyone to fill out tax returns.

I think we're digressing here. The original point, if I understood it
carefully, is that "must" would convey a requirement better than
"should", and I agree with that.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart