|
|
|
|
|
by msm_
22 days ago
|
|
>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? |
|
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.