On 2026-07-01 11:53 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 14:35:08 -0400 Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Wed, 2026-07-01 at 17:54 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > I remain very confused by our coding assistant contribution guidelines. > > > I'm going to be a bit polemic now but this seriously in good faith. > > > > > > Why precisely do we require all this detailed information about what > > > specific coding assistant was used? > > > > > > I find it very irritating that our git history has effectively started > > > to function a bit like a free advertising platform for a bunch of AI > > > companies and their proprietary agents and models. > > FWIW, this is exactly how I feel. I added a regex to strip these in > my git hooks. So at least the net/ history should be ads-free 🤷️
Ah, that's good to know. I've been rewriting them to "LLM" but I might just start doing what netdev is. > > In general, collecting data for nebulous purposes usually turns out to > > be a bad idea. If we're not 100% clear on why we want this data, then > > we're probably better off not collecting it at all. > > > > With that in mind: if we're going to water down the tag, then I say > > just remove the requirement altogether. If we later decide that we want > > to start collecting more detailed info for some (clear) purpose then we > > can revisit the idea. > > +1 > > Honestly even tool attribution feels increasingly moot. > People vibe code tools and AI-in-the-loop pipelines which they never > publish. Open source tools are (hopefully?) used in pre-commit > pipelines, so they have the "kbuild bot problem" of problems getting > fixed before the code is merged. And we have the same free advertising > problem for the rest. Agreed.
