Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 03:59:48PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 05:18:03PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > I haven't heard anyone involved in this mail thread objecting to the
> > concepts you translated into sentences below, so I think it's worth a
> > try. Of course there may be objections from people who are not aware of
> > this very conversation.
> 
> To risk repeating myself - why does it all have to be in one?
> 
> Send the non-controversial bit, get that merged so it's there, then follow it up
> with this. Simple no? :)

Sure, but I don't know what part would be the most controversial :-) I
haven't heard any objection in this mail thread.

> Sending this, getting it rejected, then having people's backs up because they'll
> tie the two things together seems the less politically astute move.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart