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

[Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>]

On 2026-07-01 11:53 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 14:35:08 -0400 Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2026-07-01 at 17:54 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > I remain very confused by our coding assistant contribution guidelines.
> > > I'm going to be a bit polemic now but this seriously in good faith.
> > > 
> > > Why precisely do we require all this detailed information about what
> > > specific coding assistant was used?
> > > 
> > > I find it very irritating that our git history has effectively started
> > > to function a bit like a free advertising platform for a bunch of AI
> > > companies and their proprietary agents and models.
> 
> FWIW, this is exactly how I feel. I added a regex to strip these in
> my git hooks. So at least the net/ history should be ads-free 🤷️

Ah, that's good to know. I've been rewriting them to "LLM" but I might
just start doing what netdev is.

> > In general, collecting data for nebulous purposes usually turns out to
> > be a bad idea. If we're not 100% clear on why we want this data, then
> > we're probably better off not collecting it at all.
> > 
> > With that in mind: if we're going to water down the tag, then I say
> > just remove the requirement altogether. If we later decide that we want
> > to start collecting more detailed info for some (clear) purpose then we
> > can revisit the idea.
> 
> +1
> 
> Honestly even tool attribution feels increasingly moot.
> People vibe code tools and AI-in-the-loop pipelines which they never
> publish. Open source tools are (hopefully?) used in pre-commit
> pipelines, so they have the "kbuild bot problem" of problems getting
> fixed before the code is merged. And we have the same free advertising
> problem for the rest.

Agreed.