Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

On 11/14/25 12:08, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
...>> + - What tools were used?
> 
> I really think we should just recommend the user to *consider* using:
> 
> Generated-by
> 
> I've been using it for Coccinelle on Linux for years, and it was not
> just me. In other projects, in particular kdevops we started using this
> to also be clear about the use of AI tools, and I've found it
> instrumental to keep track of how much code *does not use it*.

That sounds like a reasonable enough idea. But I think it's mostly
orthogonal to this document. If there were Generated-by documentation in
submitting-patches.rst, it would definitely get a special mention here.

>> + - The input to the tools you used, like the Coccinelle source script.
>> + - If code was largely generated from a single or short set of
>> +   prompts, include those prompts.
> 
> A long time ago we evaluated the question of using git notes for
> coccinelle used input, and the issue back then was we didn't have support
> for it I think. But I think that hump is gone?
> 
> If so, would using git notes for prompts be useful in this case as we scale
> tooling outside of Coccinelle, like AI prompts? I believe this can be
> instrumental for enhancing LLMs as well for fine tuned LLMs for Linux
> development.

I looked at git notes a bit during the Link: tag discussion. There still
seem to be a few humps left, like git needing special configuration not
to lose notes on "git commit --amend" or rebases.

They seem to be _getting_ there, but they certainly don't seem to be a
nice, seamless thing that can easily be put into everyone's existing
workflows.

> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <[email protected]>
Thanks!