bug#81520: Add pre-receive hook to Savannah to reject LLM-encumbered commits

> Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2026 09:11:21 -0700
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
> From: Jim Porter <[email protected]>
> 
> On 8/8/2026 10:26 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2026 18:45:35 -0700
> >> Cc: [email protected]
> >> From: Jim Porter <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Sean/Eli: Before I go too far changing things, I wanted to check your
> >> thoughts on how to structure this. We already have both a commit-msg
> >> hook (which does some style checks on the commit message) and a pre-push
> >> hook (which checks that the files listed in the commit message are
> >> correct[1]).
> >>
> >> While I could do the LLM-attribution checks in the middle of these
> >> existing checks, I think it would be clearer to do it in a separate
> >> pass. That way, we're not mixing messages about long commit message
> >> lines or misspelled file names with messages that we detected possible
> >> LLM usage.
> >>
> >> Does that sound ok? (If not, it would be harder to share the code for
> >> the LLM checks in both the commit-msg and pre-push hooks.)
> > 
> > I'm afraid I don't have a clear idea about the differences between the
> > alternatives.  Can you elaborate?
> 
> It's a little hard to explain clearly without the code (or an equivalent 
> amount of prose), but I'll try. Basically, I could add two separate 
> implementations of the LLM check, one for the commit-msg hook and one 
> for the pre-push hook. That would make the change to the commit-msg hook 
> smaller, though we'd have to maintain the LLM check in two places, and 
> the error messages about LLM use would be mixed in with all the other 
> commit-msg errors. In my opinion, the LLM checks are different enough 
> that they should be separate.
> 
> (We could also *just* add the LLM checks in the commit-msg hook and not 
> the pre-push hook, which would make things a bit simpler. However, since 
> this case seems a little more important than a too-long line in the 
> commit message, I think having the check in both places is a nice bit of 
> added protection.)
> 
> In any case, since Sean is ok with this, I'll start on an implementation 
> of my idea. That should make it easier to understand instead of talking 
> about it in the abstract.

I thought we already agreed in the past that we need both hooks.  So I
also agree with that.