Sounds like I good idea to me but needs more clarification.
1. How to find out if the output of the LLM tool is part of its training data. 2. I use, LLM based tools for almost all patches for code completion. Sometimes the code completion could be just a few words. Do we need to include “Generated-by” in such cases as well? If yes, won’t it make almost all commits to have this field set. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:01 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adding information about AI usage into commit messages I agree. Good idea. On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 8:20 AM Mike Carey <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds like something we kinda need to do - brave new world... > > On 12/17/25 11:10 AM, Ian Maxon wrote: > > Hey folks, > > > > I wanted to propose an addition to the usual commit message header > > that we use today, which looks like this: > > > >> [ASTERIXDB-$ISSUE][$AREA] $COMMIT_SUMMARY > >> > >> - user model changes: yes/no > >> - storage format changes: yes/no > >> - interface changes: yes/no > >> > >> Details: > > I think that we should add a field called "generatively assisted" and > > if it is yes, there should be a footer in the commit message called > > "Generated-by :" that lists the tool(s) used. We should also check > > that this tool's output isn't restricted in some way that would be > > incompatible with the guidance in > > https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html. I think > > generally there aren't many tools out there that would run against > > this. The main thing to be aware of is if it's regurgitating code > > that's clearly part of the training data (and that code doesn't have a > > clear and compatible license) or if the tool itself somehow says the > > code it outputs is not yours and can't be licensed as you wish. The > > idea about the footer itself isn't mine, it's from that document. It > > seems like a fine one to me. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -Ian
