Trying to tag a commit with 10 models is nonsensical. No disagreement from me there. We tag multiple people in "Co-authored-by" right now, but we don't if someone simply finds a bug in review. It might be simple enough to tag whatever model or small group of models actually author code. If none of that works, we can still tag without a model as a general courtesy to reviewers. This feels like one of the least controversial things in the thread. It's okay for reviewers to have some idea...
On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 12:28 PM Jon Haddad <[email protected]> wrote: > Adding to this, a lot of us are using multiple models from different > providers depending on the task. A quality patch, even a small one, will > take a dozen revisions. Larger ones are in the hundreds, thousands of you > use reviewer panels with different settings, models and providers. A > single patch could easily have half a dozen different models involved. I'm > not sure what we gain either. > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 7:43 AM Brandon Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 2:30 PM Jordan West <[email protected]> wrote: >> > * All LLM use must be attributed to both you and the harness, provider, >> and model being used. The project makes no specific recommendations or >> requirements regarding the toolchain used as long as the user has legal >> access and provides attribution. >> >> I think recording this in every commit and thus making it publicly >> available provides more negatives than positives. AI is both heavily >> marketed and politicized, requiring this data be made available leaves >> the project vulnerable to being used by either in the future, whatever >> that brings. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Brandon >> >
