Hi, On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 at 23:19, Michael Bien <[email protected]> wrote: > 1) should we require to disclose LLM assistance, in that case I would suggest > to adopt (or get inspired by) the linux kernel coding assistance rules [1] > since those are very concise and simple while being compatible with the ASF > guidance page as far as I see. > > It would essentially require to tag commits with "Assisted-by:" if > applicable, everything else remains unchanged. See [2] for our current PR > template. > > 2) remove LLM advertisement fields from commit headers/msgs and only allow > humans as authors/co-authors no matter how the commit was created. > (exception: trivial automation like dependabot) ... > Although 2) would be tempting, 1) aligns more with the ASF recommendations. I > do also think that it can be useful during review to know if LLMs helped to > produce a commit. (Its sometimes easy to spot, but it would remove having to > guess).
There's also the tempting 2b) - remove the advertisement fields by disallowing their usage entirely. Well, there hasn't been enough discussion in this thread yet! :-) I think doing something like 1), with "Assisted-by" in both the commit message and PR description, might be desirable. It's interesting the ASF guidelines mention contributors but not committers. Certainly committers need to be aware of the ASF guidelines when producing their own contributions. But committers merging third-party pull requests, particularly from people without an ICLA, may need to know this information to be clear about the provenance, meet the guidelines and fulfill their own ICLA requirements? I must remember that footnotes should be zero-indexed, but options should not! :-P Best wishes, Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
