> What would be much more relevant to know is to which degree LLMs were used.
>
> Assisted-by: LLM # translate commit message
> Assisted-by: LLM # generate some test cases
> Assisted-by: LLM # cleanup logic
> Assisted-by: LLM # everything and I have no clue what any in here does
I think we should just drop any attribution as a general kernel-wide
rule and let subsystems require them as needed. Then you can have all
the complexity in mm for this that you think is needed for your
workflow to function. This is precisely what the subsystem profiles are
for. So maybe just add:
Documentation/process/maintainer-mm.rst
alongside
Documentation/process/maintainer-{tip,netdev,x86}.rst
and lay down the rules that you require for LLM based submissions in
whatever detail you need.
I don't see how this additional commentary you want would ever be
enforced consistently across the kernel or who would even enforce it. I
don't need more beaurocracy to chase after people in my subsystems tbh.
The other thing is that I think this Assisted-by annotation is just
noise in the changelog. If you want to know in detail what an LLM was
used for when generating the patch it's mostly a signal for how
"intense" of a review this will get afaict (already questionable imho
but sure that's just something to disagree on).
If the information is mostly useful during review then I still would
question why it has to end up in our git logs. It's completely
irrelevant information imho.
> I thought we ask for that in some document, but couldn't immediately find it
> (and nobody does that).
