[bakugo]

Why should a random user bother analyzing the code when the "developer" didn't bother doing the same before committing huge chunks of AI generated code?

The effort put into the issue was roughly the same as was put into the release that caused the issue to be made. Fair is fair.

[msm_]

>the "developer" didn't bother doing the same before committing huge chunks of AI generated code?

This is something that you assume, not something that you have any proof of. To put it a bit more strongly, this is something that you (and hundreds of other people in that github thread) made up in your head. The maintainer is a very experienced OS developer and there's no reason to suspect they didn't review the committed code.

Bugs happen, and the mere existence of bugs is not a proof that someone is doing a poor job. Assuming those bugs even exist. I am inclined to believe they do, but the issue does a poor job of reporting them. Instead of factually reporting regressions, the "issue" is a screenshot of a viral tweet.

Your vicious reaction is not justified, and you should do better in the future.

>The effort put into the issue was roughly the same as was put into the release that caused the issue to be made. Fair is fair.

It is not fair. The rsync maintainer does not owe you anything. You owe them for using their software. How much did you donate to rsync this year?

[bakugo]

I'm sorry, but you're calling the kettle black here. You made up a scenario in your head in which the developer decided to save time by using AI to generate thousands of lines of code instead of writing it themselves, but then also decided to spend time carefully reviewing and understanding said code to look for issues before committing, even though it's a well known fact that properly reviewing such large amounts of code written by others can sometimes be a more daunting task than just writing it yourself.

We both know what the more likely scenario is here. We both know that AI fanatics have spent the last year bragging about how many thousands of lines of code they can pump out per hour. Do not claim otherwise, because to do so would be an insult to my intelligence. And from a quick look at the developer's Github profile, it's clear they've gone all in on the hype, as I cannot find a single significant commit made this year that is not signed by Claude. Even the most experienced developers are not immune to AI psychosis.

> You owe them for using their software. How much did you donate to rsync this year?

I don't remember reading this in the license. Could you point it out for me? I can't find any such clause.

[michaelmrose]

Fair is fair implies that the user for their no money is somehow based entirely on fantasy to anything at all. They literally aren't entitled to the maintainer reading their email let alone a fix.

Any request that doesn't come with a promise of payment is panhandling. We have become so accustomed to overwhelming generosity and a cup that runeth over that instead of being grateful that our free hot soup comes a condo and a masseuse that we are spiteful when it isn't to our taste.

The random user should spend time analyzing the code because helping someone help you is part of the social contract that comes with having someone whose time would cost $400 - $1000 an hour as a contractor personally gift his time to you.

If ungrateful folks forget this we might find this resource increasingly scarce.

[michaelmrose]

Because they actually want something fixed as a long term user of a software.