[earcar]

Your PR #151 was opened May 4, 2025 and merged 2 days later.

The repeated `chat.to_llm` message bug was reported Apr 30 2025, and fixed May 6, 2025, about 27 minutes after your comment.

It only showed up when reusing the same Rails chat object for multiple turns in the same Ruby object lifetime, e.g. `chat.ask("first"); chat.ask("second")` inside one controller action or one background job.

The usual flow is one turn per request/job, where the record is reloaded each time. Also, it did not overwrite records; it duplicated messages in the in-memory request context.

Gemini tool calling shipped in 1.0, schema support landed in 1.4, and observability landed in 1.16.

As for "the most trivial of applications": check the docs. RubyLLM goes well beyond that, and several multi-million-dollar companies use it in production every day.

[timr]

I don't remember every interaction I had with you folks, but that wasn't the only one. Also, the same PR was reverted a bit later, IIRC -- I think I made a mistake in my PR or it wasn't compatible with some other use case, so that's fine, but the overall theme of the interactions (again, in my recollection) was that I was personally moving much faster than you, and using your library was hurting more than helping. So I stopped.

> It only showed up when reusing the same Rails chat object for multiple turns in the same Ruby object lifetime, e.g. `chat.ask("first"); chat.ask("second")` inside one controller action or one background job.

That happens all the time. Without it, you can't pass things around to functions that add to the chat, for example.

> The usual flow is one turn per request/job, where the record is reloaded each time.

This may be your usual flow, but it doesn't have to be everybody's usual flow. No offense, but you're currently reminding me of what I interpreted as "chilly reactions" at the time.

> Gemini tool calling shipped in 1.0, schema support landed in 1.4, and observability landed in 1.16.

Great! I did them myself in less time. It's entirely possible that your library, today, is the tool I needed then.

> As for "the most trivial of applications": check the docs. RubyLLM goes well beyond that, and several multi-million-dollar companies use it in production every day.

OK. Cool. If they want to use the software, I'm sure nothing I say will convince them otherwise.

[earcar]

Thanks for litigating every layer of a bug I fixed 27 minutes after your comment, more than a year ago.

> Also, the same PR was reverted a bit later, IIRC

No. Your #151 was merged. The regressions it introduced were patched the next day in #157/#159.

Cheers!

[timr]

> Thanks for litigating every layer of a bug I fixed 27 minutes after your comment, more than a year ago.

Erm, OK. I don't think that's even close to what I did, but I guess people can read for themselves.

Again, this was not the only interaction I had with you folks, and even if you accepted my patch instantly and didn't roll it back or anything else at all (Also, once again: completely fine; I understand why you did it and don't fault you for doing it), the fact remains that there were lots of missing features that I needed, and working with you was slower than doing it myself.

Maybe that has changed, but I have to be honest: being defensive and prickly is not making me want to do it. You're actually pretty much illustrating the primary reason why I stopped.

[qup]

You called them out for being slow; turns out they weren't. You called them out for un-merging your work; turns out they didn't.

Now you keep saying you had other bad interactions, but you haven't even said what they were. I have a feeling that if you named them, shortly later I'd read a comment about how it wasn't true. Again.

If the library didn't match your needs, that's fine. Who cares? That's happened to all of us many times, right?

[timr]

> You called them out for being slow; turns out they weren't. You called them out for un-merging your work; turns out they didn't.

I said they were slower than me. I didn't "call anyone out" for un-merging my PR -- I explicitly did the opposite. I could care less.

More than anything, I said I recalled that the reception was chilly. This thread has reminded me of why I had that opinion.

> If the library didn't match your needs, that's fine. Who cares? That's happened to all of us many times, right?

Sure. And we're allowed to talk about it.

[nougati]

The decision to audit (frankly, aggressively) this guy out the gate with this comment on a discussion thread is not a good look. It's a very unnecessary way to tarnish the reputation of the devs by picking fights with someone sharing their experience. If you can't see how you did that, perhaps you should ask an LLM to help.

[spider-mario]

Why should the parent comment be immune from factual challenges? Reports of personal experience are not sacred.

[nougati]

Learn to pick your fights? People can check the history of the git issues if they want to see. The dev clearly had a bone to pick

[qup]

I think it's really neutral in tone and I appreciate the record being corrected.

2 days is a great turnaround time for PRs isn't it?

[nougati]

With how the record is so correct now, can you clarify for me who was right?

It's the wrong question; the first person was sharing their experience, and the reply jumped to collecting evidence that only vindicated the characterisation of a 'chilly response'. It's a human social skills thing. This place is not github issues. People who actually care will see. People who 'clarify' it here were never maintainers