Re: LLM Commit in upstream `master`?!

> From: Sean Whitton <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
>  [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2026 11:42:57 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii [26/Jul  7:56am +03] wrote:
> 
> > We should remove the Co-Authered-By heading, but that can be done by
> > editing the generated ChangeLog.
> > [...]
> > We could do that, but forced commits are trouble for everyone, so we
> > should think hard whether this is justified.  We have more grave
> > mistakes in commit messages, like the missing
> > Copyright-paperwork-exempt thingies (which _are_ legally significant),
> > but we never even bother fixing them.  If the only problem is to cope
> > with people who ask questions about that, I'd say "bring them on".
> 
> I am convinced it's justified in this case.  We don't want people doing
> data mining or searches on the Git history of our project to think that
> the body of this commit was written by an LLM.

Isn't that a lost battle?  Nothing is ever lost on the Internet; in
particular, sites like the Way Back Machine will have picked up that
instance already, as well as whatever Git mirrors are there in the
wild which sync with us.  I don't think a forced push can give us what
you'd like to have, not after more than a day this was in the wild.

So I'd say let's revert the commit and reinstall it without the
Co-Authored-By header, and that should be enough.