From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 5D8D43C3458; Fri, 3 Jul 2026 11:58:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783079937; cv=none; b=HernH699KkAnP4gMxTZWulclY2RLjJ6p+aOmlvO7JdEZMgkcmjL31f7c1337neNQ+dpabVgnAHHt81urwb74Gtzau6qxFPT8lq0ZsWYTE/cTnREvEOB2HmwjBsF8a0kGGLF74V0ehyRaiHhQEBs0054xcjdikGz9YiaZGap5HSQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783079937; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9RkqNxccYBDEv45d8DCin2QlOks8W9i+BqfQdAypggA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=iHPklHYW5kJU9XnRYEYlKxPED+bMotD+8SRi/o5Jn/LPkMjC0IwDcQn7SBqcXgVr6uWdzDGlKYg69l/xlVD/YxxuzHS7Rs3NRyr0i17nqhemqkRto63mF/5mwH0qYTjY6SScOcXBJ0qcm7CmBQCB8OIcOe83U4cAdtY4v7MjvWs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=jMbIFB5e; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="jMbIFB5e" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72007DF3; Fri, 3 Jul 2026 13:58:08 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1783079888; bh=9RkqNxccYBDEv45d8DCin2QlOks8W9i+BqfQdAypggA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=jMbIFB5ey+7gjZZYQ/z8CrT7gJhPjlRtqGNABHNB2rlXYjJ5jt7tnY/SmfHA5A0pV 8WHJHXoPULdNEeqwQ8GY54A6R6amUWuvdjynVgYeLUvOE/7Aqbo4OzLGw0FgaCDFzN qPp/rlyuwWVCp7fmgjR0wZvLzJjOF38Y9wIkEfGs= Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 14:58:52 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Ellie Cc: Christian Brauner , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Jens Axboe , David Hildenbrand , Jeff Layton , Vlastimil Babka , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution Message-ID: <20260703115852.GC3659451@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260701-work-coding-assistants-v1-1-a20a94d1d606@kernel.org> <53942438-a44d-4578-b1c6-d45c2af1767d@horse64.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53942438-a44d-4578-b1c6-d45c2af1767d@horse64.org> On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 11:21:28AM +0200, Ellie wrote: > On 7/1/26 5:54 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: > > I remain very confused by our coding assistant contribution guidelines. > > I'm going to be a bit polemic now but this seriously in good faith. > > > > Why precisely do we require all this detailed information about what > > specific coding assistant was used? > > > > I find it very irritating that our git history has effectively started > > to function a bit like a free advertising platform for a bunch of AI > > companies and their proprietary agents and models. > > > > And it reamins unclear to me what exactly we do get out of this detailed > > information: Do we want to run statistical analysis on what agent and > > model is used the most and publish that on LWN at some point? > > > > I acknowledge that my stance is even more radical: imho we would just > > stop it with any disclosure requirements completely. > > Sorry to drop in as a relatively uninformed person, but it seems like > the following mails would be relevant for that discussion: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e12330b9-c29e-45ca-9375-9e3d13426d85@horse64.org/T/ Your messages got completely ignored for a month and a half. Most developers (including myself) don't read LKML due to the high traffic, but I'm still surprised by the complete lack of reply. Maybe CC'ing the workflows@vger.kernel.org mailing list would have helped ? > If LLM code were no longer committed to the kernel, which wouldn't > exclude using an LLM to pinpoint problem spots and security bugs as long > as it's not used to produce the fix itself, then the commits also would > no longer need an attribution. That's absolutely right, and I would welcome that outcome. At this point I don't think I'm talking for the majority though :-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart