lux 🦊ΘΔ"You should judge PRs based on code quality not the fact i used LLMs" okay but if a construction worker closes their eyes and starts flailing their arms while holding hammers and says "you should judge my skill based on the nails i hit" you rightfully move aside and stop them before they knock someone unconscious
nicole4fox@SharpLimefox since when did we stop caring about the outcome when its about getting stuff done? As long as the person can exain everything and its an actually good PR?
Todd Knarr@nicole4fox @SharpLimefox Time spent. Most maintainers don't have unlimited time, so they have to prioritize which PRs are worth reviewing and which can be dropped for lack of time with the least impact. Note that maintainers already do this: if you consistently submit low-quality PRs, you'll soon find the maintainers just ignoring you.
@tknarr @SharpLimefox oh yeah thats why i was talking about high quality prs that still use llms
@nicole4fox @SharpLimefox A dev who submits lots of low-quality PRs can still submit the occasional good one. The thing is, the maintainers don't have the time to spend on all those bad PRs on the off chance of finding a good one. So they ignore the dev and accept that the loss of a few good PRs from them is worth it to free up time for PRs from devs with a better track record.
Same thing with genAI. It tends to produce lots of low-quality PRs and the devs most likely to use it...
@nicole4fox @SharpLimefox ... are the ones least likely to review their own code and clean it up to a higher standard. It makes sense then for maintainers to apply the same logic and drop it in favor of PRs what're more likely to be usable.
@tknarr @SharpLimefox I feel like i was only disagreeing with not reviewing high quality LLM commits by categorally excluding those. There are good devs out there who use LLMs and adhere to standards. To me it doesnt make sense to exclude PRs for the sole reason of being written by an LLM. Partly because you can train a local LLM based on your own coding style.
@nicole4fox @SharpLimefox The problem is then you get people submitting low-quality LLM-assisted PRs going "But you accepted them from HIM! Why not from ME!?". Even if the reason is quality, it turns into a time-wasting flame war about LLMs. Not specific to LLMs either, if there's any two criteria there's always a group who'll try to abuse the one that benefits them.
Which would be manageable by just focusing on quality, save that LLMs make it easy to generate a couple dozen bad...
@tknarr @SharpLimefox id just give them a LLM generated response about code quality and why this PR is bad and the other is not tbh
@nicole4fox @SharpLimefox Still burns maintainer time dealing with their arguments. Hence the hard and fast rule with no room for abuse.
@nicole4fox @SharpLimefox ... PRs for every decent one. That results in the maintainer getting overloaded and drowned in crap. They have to deal with that without burning all their time on stuff they can't use.
@tknarr @SharpLimefox i disagree tbh but i dont think we will agree on anything in that regard so ill just leave it be