* Kees Cook (kees@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 07:45:56PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > My thought is to treat AI as another developer. If a developer helps you > > like the AI is helping you, would you give that developer credit for that > > work? If so, then you should also give credit to the tooling that's helping > > you. > > > > I suggested adding a new tag to note any tool that has done non-trivial > > work to produce the patch where you give it credit if it has helped you as > > much as another developer that you would give credit to. > > We've got tags to choose from already in that case: > > Suggested-by: LLM For me, 'Suggested-by:' seems fine for where an LLM has responded to a 'suggest improvements to this function'. > or > > Co-developed-by: LLM <not@xxxxxxxxxx.legal.standing> > Signed-off-by: LLM <not@xxxxxxxxxx.legal.standing> > > The latter seems ... not good, as it implies DCO SoB from a thing that > can't and hasn't acknowledged the DCO. Yeh, the Co-developed-by: isn't terrible, but in both that and the Suggested-by: is there a standard for how you would refer to the tool? IMHO it should not have an email address there otherwise it'll confuse tools into cc'ing them. Dave > > -- > Kees Cook > -- -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code ------- / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux | Happy \ \ dave @ treblig.org | | In Hex / \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/
