On Sat, 08 Nov 2025, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 2025-11-07 at 15:35 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > NeilBrown <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > On Sat, 08 Nov 2025, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > > Full disclosure: I did use Claude code to generate the first > > > > approximation of this patch, but I had to fix a number of things that it > > > > missed. I probably could have given it better prompts. In any case, I'm > > > > not sure how to properly attribute this (or if I even need to). > > > > > > My understanding is that if you fully understand (and can defend) the > > > code change with all its motivations and implications as well as if you > > > had written it yourself, then you don't need to attribute whatever fancy > > > text editor or IDE (e.g. Claude) that you used to help produce the > > > patch. > > > > The proposed policy for such things is here, under review right now: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > > jon > > Thanks Jon. > > I'm guessing that this would fall under the "menial task" > classification, and therefore doesn't need attribution. This seems > applicable: > > + - Purely mechanical transformations like variable renaming > > This is a little different, but it's a similar rote task. > -- > Jeff Layton <[email protected]> >
The bit I particularly liked was: + +Even if your tool use is out of scope you should still always consider +if it would help reviewing your contribution if the reviewer knows +about the tool that you used. + "would it help the reviewer"? I agree that is a key question. In your case I cannot see how it would help. Thanks, NeilBrown _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
