Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution

[Jeff Layton]

On Thu, 2026-07-02 at 16:41 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jul 2026, Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > "Say how much of your patch is LLM written, here are some examples".
> 
> I think the question is, did you offload understanding to the LLM, or
> just the creation of the patch.
> 
> I think Assisted-by gets used as an indication of "the contributor might
> not understand the contribution", and the patch might warrant extra
> scrutiny. But that's not reliable by any means.
> 
> Right or wrong, it used to be that the lack of polish in a patch was
> used as a poor proxy for that, but now we get polished patches from
> LLMs.
> 

Exactly.

I think trying gatekeep patches based on whether they were LLM
generated is a long-term losing battle. I prefer to focus on the value
of the patches themselves and not get too wrapped up in how they were
created.

The original focus of this discussion was around Assisted-by: tags
though. I'd like to circle back to that:

Do we have enough consensus to drop the requirement for them? The
patches that are most problematic are pretty universally unattributed
anyway.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>