From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <li...@treblig.org> It seems right to require that code which is automatically generated is disclosed in the commit message.
This is a starting point. It's purposely agnostic about whether using any such tools is a good idea or not, and is also agnostic about trying to draw any hard line about when a tool should be disclosed like this. Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <li...@treblig.org> --- This span out of a Fediverse discussion, those involved cc'd Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst index cede4e7b29af..d7c8f47a4632 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst @@ -452,6 +452,18 @@ development. SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took as it was propagated to the maintainers and ultimately to Linus, with the first SoB entry signalling primary authorship of a single author. +Disclosing tool generated code +------------------------------ + +When a substantial part of the patch (code or text) has been generated by +some automated system, such as an AI/LLM, or automated code patcher +(e.g. Coccinelle) the use shall be disclosed by:: + + Generated-by: Example Tool 2.3 + +Where possible, the input text or prompt should be included in the +commit message to enable others to learn techniques that work well. + When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by: ------------------------------------------------ -- 2.50.1
