We have added a requirement to include a commit message trailer
"Assisted-by: <model> (<tool>)" when using generative tooling (see
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IMPALA/Contributing+to+Impala#:~:text=If%20using%20generative%20tooling).
Next, we need to consider the situation where multiple generative tools are
used on the same commit. For example, multiple models may be used to
approach different problems on a single commit or may be used to get
different perspectives on the same problem. Also, multiple tools could be
used for the same reason.
How should we document that multiple models/tools were used? Here are the
options I can see:
1. Add an "Assisted-by" trailer only for the primary model/agent that was
used.
Pros: Simple
Cons: Loses information/context about the commit, may not always have a
primary model/tool that was used.
2. Use a single "Assisted-by" trailer listing all models/agents. For
example: "Assisted-by: GPT-5.3-Codex, Sonnet 4.6 (Copilot, Claude Code)".
Pros: Includes all generative tooling information in a single line.
Cons: Loses some information/context about the commit since it's not
clear which model was used with which agent.
3. Use a single "Assisted-by" trailer per agent. Each agent will have its
own "Assisted-by" trailer in the commit message with multiple models
potentially listed.
For example:
Assisted-by: GPT-5.3-Codex, Sonnet 4.6 (Copilot)
Assisted-by: Sonnet 4.6 (Claude Code)
Pros: Does not hide information.
Cons: Potentially more difficult to parse.
4. Use a single "Assisted-by" trailer per model/agent.
For example:
Assisted-by: GPT-5.3-Codex (Copilot)
Assisted-by: Sonnet 4.6 (Copilot)
Assisted-by: Sonnet 4.6 (Claude Code)
Pros: Does not hide information.
Cons: Most verbose.
My vote is for option 3. It is the most concise without losing information.
Thanks,
Jason
