[greggyb]

> I don’t see how it could be that bad (incorrect, specifically), considering bun is probably the most widely-used production use case of zig.

That may be the case, but the bun project only needs zig to correctly compile bun. The zig project needs to be able to correctly compile all existing and possible zig programs.

I haven't reviewed things, but it's possible and even likely (at least based on my own experience with LLMs) that the validation is mostly focused on bun compilation.

[daishi55]

Do you think they skipped the main zig test suite or something? Only tested bun compilation? That seems unlikely to me

[thunderfork]

They didn't take into account the long-run impacts of the changes on future development, etc.

I recommend reading the explanation given by one of the Zig devs, as it's a very clear and solid one.

[zeroonetwothree]

This is the most common issue I see with LLM authored PRs. Yes it does fix the issue _right now_ but as a maintainer I need to consider how it affects the project in the future. But “contributors” get mad if you reject for those reasons. So I can understand having a blanket policy.