On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 12:15:43PM +0200, Jori Koolstra wrote: > > I haven't really seen anyone opposed the following I wrote earlier: > > - it's more relevant to know how an LLM was used than that it was used (and > the > tag is just a quick indication of this) > - advertising for particular corporations does not really serve any purpose to > the community, so just say "LLM" > - the tags may be used to prevent arguing > - the requirement to be open about LLM use (whether by tags or whatever) makes > it easier for maintainers (if they feel the need) to de-prioritize patches > by someone unwilling to abide by these rules whenever the maintainer > perceives > or suspects prior undeclared LLM use. This prevents an asymmetrical > situation > of LLM slop being produced much faster that what can be reviewed.
Yup completely agree. I just want to get something merged rather than just talk :) and so to avoid any _possible_ argument 'keep it like it is but add a comment' is a much, much easier sell to everybody. Then we can follow up with anything else one we get _something useful merged_ :) > > Perhaps the last point is more controversial. Not in my opinion. We're only at the beginning of this horror show and I think far stronger measures will eventually be needed (e.g. newcomes will have to build trust first, which sucks, but it may be the only practical solution). > > I would really like to adept the systemd policy text.[1] If I have time later > today > I'll try to write something up... although maybe it is too ambitious :) > > [1]: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260702-bahnen-ertappen-verspannungen-0eaaf1e3f5af@brauner/ :) Cheers, Lorenzo
