Post #652359

2026-03-11 14:52 UTC

Question for y&#39;all who are using claude or similar: why do you put `Co-authored-by: Claude` etc. into commit messages? You already pay that company money, and in addition you do free advertisement for them? Should I also start adding `Co-authored-by: neovim`, &quot;proudly written with the help of rust-analyzer&quot;, etc. to my commit messages, and if not why is that different? Or is that a way to deflect responsibility? &quot;Look, claude wrote that, it&#39;s not my fault if the code is wrong&quot;? Or are you trying to say that part of the copyright of the commit is owned by claude? And if so, what do you mean with that? It&#39;s Anthropic&#39;s now, or do you believe non-persons can legally own something? Only replies about this aspect please. I&#39;m not interested in hearing your opinion about how claude is the future of programming or how AI is the worst. There are already enough discussions about that, we don&#39;t have to start yet another one.

Replies (2)

@wouter@pleroma.debian.social 2026-03-11 17:05

@slomo Linux kernel policy requires that. Allows reviewers to go in with an understanding that the quality might not be great, I think? At the same time, Linux kernel also requires that you understand the patch you send. So I'm also not quite sure why that policy exists.

Open ##1094387
@bilboed@bilboed.tech 2026-03-11 17:17

@slomo You also forgot "Copy-Pasted-From: Stack-Overflow" 😅 More seriously, this kind of information *could* be mentioned in the MR for example (just like any other source of information you might have used in the process of figuring out the solution/commit). But in the final commit, no. The commit can point to the MR/bugzilla/whatever page it came from (which includes the whole discussion and process). But if it's accepted and goes in, i hope that all due process/review was done and that the "human" author/commiter/reviewer are the ones who are responsible for that commit.

Open ##1094391