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

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 03:26:58PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 01:51:10PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > On 7/2/26 12:04, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > (thanks for the cc-!)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 09:46:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > >> On 7/2/26 09:27, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> 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:
> > >
> > > A single comment is complexity?
> >
> > I think Christian meant more elaborate rules. More than just "If you used LLMs,
> > disclose how you used them."
>
> Yes.
>
> I'm going to follow netdev and start dropping those tags from the
> changelog completely too. After speaking to some bpf maintainers they
> also don't use the tag. So I can safely assume that 3 large subsystems
> don't bother with it.
>
> So seems to me that such requirements should just move into the
> subsystem profiles.
>
> I think as a global policy this has ran its course.

I'm honestly not sure why you sent this patch in the first place if you're
simply going to ignore it (+ people's opinions) anyway :)

Maybe we need a way of figuring out which patches mean something and which don't
(I guess whatever Linus enforces is the real truth of that).

Anyway I guess I'll get back to work, and we can figure out what we'll do in mm
separately I guess.

I'll still send a patch to link the apparently redundant AI doc to the generated
tooling doc because for those who do pay attention it's silly that they're not
connected.

Thanks, Lorenzo