Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:34:32 -0700 > <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This touches on explainability of AI. Perhaps the metadata would be > > > interesting for XAI research... not sure that's enough to be lugging > > > those tags in git history. > > > > Agree. The "who to blame" is "Author:". They signed DCO they are > > responsible for debugging what went wrong in any stage of the > > development of a patch per usual. We have a long history of debugging > > tool problems without tracking tool versions in git history. > > My point of the "who to blame" was not about the author of said code, > but if two or more developers are using the same AI agent and then some > patter of bugs appears that is only with that AI agent, then we know > that the AI agent is likely the culprit and to look for code by other > developers that used that same AI agent. > > It's a way to track down a bug in a tool that is creating code, not > about moving blame from a developer to the agent itself. Between fine tuning, the process of doing local training to emphasize / de-emphasize some weights in the model, and prompt variability, the signal from a patch trailer is diluted. If maintainers care about commit text conciseness for humans and traceability for AI, those competing concerns will conflict above the "---" line in patches.
