[Dylan16807]

That's a solid reason to keep LLMs away from the kind of tasks that help with onboarding. But a patch series from a competent team that changes 3000 lines should probably be evaluated on its own merits. Or at least, the collaboration-based reasons to reject AI don't apply and the real reason would be something else.

(Though I don't know if this particular patch series would get accepted on its own merits.)

[riffraff]

The recent article explained the bun patch would have been refused on technical merits as it's intrinsically incorrect, to be able to work properly it required some language changes.

[bboozzoo]

> patch series from a competent team that changes 3000 lines should probably be

split into a bunch of much smaller changes?

[Dylan16807]

I don't understand your suggestion. If you take an ugly patch series that changes 3000 lines and organize it into small quality changes, it's still a patch series that changes 3000 lines.

There's no reason to assume my generic statement was talking about the ugly version rather than the nicely organized version.

[wolfi1]

perhaps not all of these 3000 line changes make sense?

[moomoo11]

I mean in an authoritarian system you wouldn’t make a one off exception like that.