[dmitriv]

The change was about helping teams ensure AI-generated code is attributed in commits - nothing to do with copyrights and the like. If you don't have to take my word for it - query VS Code repo for changes and issues that went into implementing this and you will see.

[sandeepkd]

Thanks for jumping in the conversation. Logically it does makes sense to attribute the authors correctly, however in this context it might be helpful if you can provide any details about the users complaining that their PR's are being marked as co-authored even when they have not used the copilot? Is that intentional or a missed check in the implementation.

Also for layman readers like me who might not be actively involved, it might have been helpful to add the issue/referenced conversation why this change was made on the PR itself

[dmitriv]

The fact that non-AI changes are attributed to Copilot is a bug. The intent was to allow customers to add attribution of AI-generated code. As with any bug, it was not intetional.

[voganmother42]

you intentionally ignored internal reports of if not working

[fastasucan]

>The fact that non-AI changes are attributed to Copilot is a bug.

But sneaking in the attribution to Copilot without approval was the feature?

[golem14]

It would be easier to rationalize it if there were an assurance that AI-generated code would be generally credited with the model used. But as I understand it, this credit only happens when using the co-pilot GUI, right? No credit for copy paste code from uncertain pedigree? So I think it makes sense to question the logic here.

Would be possible to admit a brain fart and roll the change back?