Post #3422884
2026-06-26 14:02 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@holgersson@maly.io 2026-06-27 07:36
@troed@swecyb.com The policy is a tool to guide behaviour and more important to communicate with submitters. It looks as it's more effective to describe usage of a specific tool or type of tools instead of bringing in abstract quality descriptions. In my opinion a comparable rule could say "Please don't use editor Foo, as it breaks source code regularly or be super careful if you do and tell us".
-
@alexband@hachyderm.io 2026-06-26 14:45
@troed@swecyb.com Suppose you want to contribute a great, much desired feature to one of our open source projects. Some well executed prompts result in a 10K LoC block of code that functionally appears to do what you intended. Before submitting this as a Pull Request to the NLnet Labs team, have you reviewed, do you understand and take responsibility for every line of code that was generated? In our experiences over the last year, this rarely happens. Code is left on our doorstep as a (well intended) gift. But it put the onus on us to review the code, take responsibility for it and merge it into the main branch. Knowing that our software runs in critical infrastructure that power the very fabric of the internet, that is a big ask. As part of our review, we need to be able to have a conversation where both parties understand the ins and outs of the problem space and the solution that is being proposed. That’s not what LLM-use provides the submitter, and it negatively affects the long-term maintenance of the contribution.
-
@aerique@genart.social 2026-06-27 18:10
@troed@swecyb.com @alexband@hachyderm.io Don't talk for all senior developers please. I know many who balk at LLM usage.
-
@decay@gts.todayiwilllaunchmyinfantsonintoorbit.com 2026-06-27 18:27
@troed@swecyb.com @alexband@hachyderm.io your idiot slop tools produce bad and unmaintainable code and a flood of trash prs.