[lemonwaterlime]

The issue with that stance, practically speaking, is that anyone could have hand-submitted generated code at any time, so why this January cutoff date?

I would expect a decrease in code quality in a specific part of the repo or at least a quote/link to a changelog stating that generated code is being used as part of the fork making its case.

[wat10000]

They're already talking about pushing it back farther, trying to revert/rewrite every commit from users suspected of ever using LLMs. Practicality doesn't really enter into it, this is an ideologically driven project that insists on getting rid of the "taint." https://codeberg.org/NerdNextDoor/evi/issues/19

[lemonwaterlime]

I understand it is an ideological project. My point is that given their intent, there are things they should do to make their case. They should provide the evidence in the README etc.

If they are correct and things must be done, they aren’t providing the evidence. That’s not the same as saying there’s no evidence or reason to take this stance. Do you see the distinction I am making?

[wat10000]

Are you talking about evidence that LLM contributions are harmful, or evidence that there are any? The former is unnecessary, as this is not an evangelism project, it's for people who already believe LLMs are bad. For the latter, I think the project is aimed at people who are already plugged into the issue, or suffers from the usual mistake of thinking everyone is plugged into a specific issue. In any case, it takes about five seconds to search for "claude" in the main vim repo's PRs and find that evidence.

[lemonwaterlime]

It’s about demonstrating via the diligence that you are a good steward of a fork. This is a requirement of any fork for it to take and be stable.

[wat10000]

That’s the trouble with ideological projects. They tend to focus on the one thing and neglect the rest.