[Drupon]

>We take contributions as human-written text, not code — see CONTRIBUTING.md. Describe the change you'd like informally in a .txt or .md file in adrs/, and if we're aligned we'll handle the implementation. Report vulnerabilities privately — see SECURITY.md, not a public issue.

Starting to think people were right when they talked about our industry itself having an AI psychosis problem.

[bityard]

As someone who has maintained an open source project, I much prefer written bug reports and feature requests to drive-by PRs. (I almost don't even care if they are LLM-written.)

[dwedge]

I appreciate open source maintainers and understand that it's a lot of thankless work, and I know what I'm about to say comes off as (and probably is) ignorant but the hoops projects make me jump through to report hugs or security issues is often like working for corporate in terms of bureaucracy and a lot of times I just don't bother. I've reported a few dozen bugs so I'm not prolific here but also not speaking without any experience at all. And then you often have automation (eg. Debian) closing bugs because nobody looked at it and saying to reopen it if it's still a problem in the current release.

Like I said, I do understand and appreciate how annoying it must be. But there are two ways to look at this, one is that it's free software a bug report is like a support request - and of course nobody should expect free support. The other way to look at it is that by reporting bugs I'm volunteering as QA for the project and the report is beneficial.

[epistasis]

I sometimes add a PR with the fix for a bug report I make, but the last few have been ignored in favor of the maintainer's own code. So I think I'll stop doing PRs and just point to code lines instead.

[jez]

SQLite has a conceptually similar contribution process:

> the project does not accept patches from random people on the internet

https://sqlite.org/copyright.html

In their case, it's motivated by a desire to keep copyrighted code out of the SQLite implementation, but I'm sure it has a nice benefit of making it so that an extremely widely used project doesn't get drive by, low effort code review requests while still allowing the community to engage.

Asking that "random people on the internet" don't sent code is not altogether a novel, post-AI idea.

[dgellow]

I tend to think we have an industry AI mania problem, but I’m not sure I understand what you find psychotic about this. I find it better to get a text suggestion or description of the change, then work on the implementation myself, even without using an agent, instead of reviewing LLM diffs that I know I will want to tweak to my taste

[embedding-shape]

Sounds to me they're asking people to basically at least put the starting stones to something that looks like a specification. Not a bad idea to gate the flurry of feature requests to people who actually can think 10-15 minutes about the feature they're suggesting/asking for.

[meagher]

as a maintainer, seems nicer than getting a slop pr with no context.

[cyanydeez]

the other option is to generate 5000+ open issues that no one cares are open.

Also, it's a AI project; what, exactly, do you think they're going to try and do?

[bakugo]

So, basically,

> Please write our prompts for us