Looking at all the unmerged pull requests in ripgrep, you can see what's going on. I will not link him here, but for instance, there's a "Senior Software Engineer at Microsoft", whose agent created 260 PRs in 211 repos with trivial typo fixes in code comments(!). Almost all of them are rejected (including those in ripgrep), but of course, a few get merged and he now boasts he "contributed" to sqlalchemy, Nim and others... What a time to be alive.
I used my human eyes to submit updates to Redis and Git, fixing typos in comments.
Sure it's low-hanging fruit, but if you're looking at the code it's good to have the comments be readable and not full of typos.
(That said this was a few years ago, and there were no LLMs at that point. I didn't go out of my way to make trivial contributions, but I figured since I saw the "problems" I should submit a patch to fix them.)
This is such a refreshing policy. AI code is welcome as long as it's good, but comments have to be human.
If someone can't take the time to write their own replies (in their own words), then it feels fair to assume that they didn't take the time to test, review, and clean whatever code they submitted.
Was curious and astral put up their AI policy a couple weeks before the acquisition. Of course, it's quite possible they already knew it was happening: https://github.com/astral-sh/.github/pull/1
That said, I'm kind of surprised ripgrep hasn't been acquired by anyone, considering all the major AI agents use it pretty heavily.
well, ripgrep is not a company.. what means to "buy" an open source project?
companies either "fund" open source developers (usually a pittance), "contribute" code, or if all fails "fork" them, but straight buying, that's something I never see
In slave states without proper civil rights, like the US, you can buy them. Your contract forbids everything. Eg every SW you produce in private belongs to the company, not to you. Or everything you say in private will affect your contract.
Of course, they can't realistically police every use of AI any more than they can police someone using Grammarly or similar tools. I think the core of the argument is really about drawing a hard line against low-quality "write a response for me" type usage.
In reality, people are going to keep doing that no matter what. But at the same time, it's still probably a worthwhile line to draw when it comes to discouraging more irresponsible or disengaged uses of AI.
Ten times shorter just means "readable without losing an excess of time on ramble" and I feel like someone's comeback to this will be "you should ask an AI to summarise".