On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 07:42:35AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 09:30:28AM -0500, Greg KH wrote: > > > So clarifying there that a "Assisted-by: LLM" is also good enough would > > > make > > > sense if we agree on that. > > > > If we all agree on that, I'm saying that _I_ don't care, but others > > might. > > I agree that requiring the model name is not a good idea, because some > developers might be using unreleased products where the name itself > might not be public. So allowing the version number of the LLM to be > elided would be a good change. > > I'll also note that it's starting to be the case where tool is > actually quite relevant. So it's not just about the LLM Model, but > whether you're using Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, or Shahiko. You > can use the tool or the harness with different models. > > So whether the tag is: > > Assisted-By: OpenCode:Gemini 3.5 Pro > Assisted-By: Claude Code > Assisted-By: LLM > > I'd be fine with reviewing patches with any of the above. However, to > me that's actually not the most interesting part. See below.... > > > For me, the info after "Assisted-by:" doesn't matter, it's the first > > part. > > For me, what I care most about is *how* the LLM was used. For > example, if someone just used the output of Sashiko to fix a problem > in their commit, that's one kind of "Assisted-by". If Sahsiko > identifies a pre-existing bug, and the developer addes a patch to the > patch series, or creates a new patch series, that's a different kind > of "Assisted-by". A third kind of "Assisted-by" might include asking > the LLM to create a Coccinelle semantic patches (because I'm not smart > enough to create semantic patches). > > And of course, all of this is quite different from the stereotypical > "vibe coding" where the LLM generates thousands of lines of code which > the human doesn't understand before sending the pull request. :-) > > So for me, adding something after a #-sign comment explaning how the > LLM was used would be very useful. > > > > My kids should clean up their room; doesn't work. > > > > But, if you notice that your kids didn't clean up their room, and you > > had told them to, you can then talk to them about doing it properly > > based on what they are supposed to be doing. > > Another metaphor might be that people shouldn't try to evade paying > their taxes; merely passing a law saying they have to file correct tax > returns doesn't guarantee this. But it was specifically the law > against tax evasion is how US Law Enforcement arrested the Chicago mob > boss Al Capone. > > Just because some people might lie doesn't mean that we shouldn't > bother to ask everyone to fill out tax returns.
I think we're digressing here. The original point, if I understood it carefully, is that "must" would convey a requirement better than "should", and I agree with that. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
