What’s the point in debating the PR quality? The policy explicitly forbids all LLM code, so that policy is of course the “real reason”.
What’s the point in debating the PR quality? The policy explicitly forbids all LLM code, so that policy is of course the “real reason”.
> What’s the point in debating the PR quality?
Because the pro-group are whining that the policy is preventing the merge, when in actual fact even if the policy did not exist, the PR is crap anyway.
I don’t see how it could be that bad (incorrect, specifically), considering bun is probably the most widely-used production use case of zig. But regardless, let’s say it’s a bad PR for the sake of argument - it’s beside the point. It cannot be merged no matter how good it is, due to the strict no-LLM policy.
> I don’t see how it could be that bad (incorrect, specifically), considering bun is probably the most widely-used production use case of zig.
That may be the case, but the bun project only needs zig to correctly compile bun. The zig project needs to be able to correctly compile all existing and possible zig programs.
I haven't reviewed things, but it's possible and even likely (at least based on my own experience with LLMs) that the validation is mostly focused on bun compilation.
Do you think they skipped the main zig test suite or something? Only tested bun compilation? That seems unlikely to me
They didn't take into account the long-run impacts of the changes on future development, etc.
I recommend reading the explanation given by one of the Zig devs, as it's a very clear and solid one.
This is the most common issue I see with LLM authored PRs. Yes it does fix the issue _right now_ but as a maintainer I need to consider how it affects the project in the future. But “contributors” get mad if you reject for those reasons. So I can understand having a blanket policy.
> I don’t see how it could be that bad (incorrect, specifically), considering bun is probably the most widely-used production use case of zig.
The PR is probably fine for bun’s purposes. That doesn’t make it a good PR for Zig’s purposes, and could very well paint Zig into a weird corner.
> It cannot be merged no matter how good it is, due to the strict no-LLM policy.
This is about meta-discourse. Of course it’s against the policy. That’s the point of discussing the PR: to get Zig to change the policy, or at least provide an exception in this case. Or to argue the opposite.
Of course the policy is preventing the merge. That’s literally the point of the policy…
> Of course the policy is preventing the merge. That’s literally the point of the policy…
In this case it isn't the blocker - the fact that the dev took the time to read the PR in detail, comment on it, and provide reasons why it could not be merged makes it very clear to me that the policy wasn't the blocker.
If they were going to enforce the policy for this PR, they wouldn't have bothered to read it. The only reason to read it is to see if the policy is waived for this specific PR.
OTOH why bother to polish the PR if it won't get accepted anyway?
> OTOH why bother to polish the PR if it won't get accepted anyway?
As the Zig maintainer so patiently explained, no amount of "polish" can fix the PR because it is misaligned to the correctness that they require.
IOW, that PR is so far off the reservation, unless it is completely rewritten, it won't be accepted.
it could have been rewritten, rewriting PRs is cheap today, but that isn't the question. the question is, would it have been accepted had it met all the quality and engineering standards and full disclosure that it was 90%+ LLM generated?
> it could have been rewritten, rewriting PRs is cheap today
Rewriting PRs with LLMs is cheap, but often the output is no better than the previous revision (fixing one issue only to cause another one is very common IME). And reviewing each revision of the PR is not cheap.
I've had good experiences with people submitting AI generated PRs who then actually take the time to understand what's going on and fix issues (either by hand or with a targeted LLM generated fix) that are brought up in review. But it's incredibly frustrating when you spend an hour reviewing something only to have someone throw your review comments directly back at the LLM and have it generate something new that requires another hour of review.
> it could have been rewritten, rewriting PRs is cheap today, but that isn't the question. the question is, would it have been accepted had it met all the quality and engineering standards and full disclosure that it was 90%+ LLM generated?
In this case it looks like the answer is "Yes"; the PR was not dismissed immediately, it was first examined in great detail!
Why would the maintainer expend effort on something that was going to be rejected anyway?
because the policy is clearly 'reject' and yet significant time has been spent - either effort was wasted or policy is at best 'not implemented'.
> either effort was wasted or policy is at best 'not implemented'.
I don't understand this PoV - have you ever come across a policy in any environment that wasn't subject to case-by-case exceptions?
Even in highly regulated environments (banking/fintech, Insurance, Medical, etc), policies are subject to exceptions and exemptions, done on a case-by-case basis.
The notion, in this specific case, that "well they rejected it because of policy" is clearly nonsense and I don't understand why people are pushing this so hard when the explanation of why an exemption can't be made for this specific PR is public, accessible and, I feel, already public knowledge.
No amount of rewriting will help you if you, fundamentally, wrote the wrong thing, as is the case here.
People forget that LLM code cannot be covered by copyright. So LLM code cannot be placed under an open source license
This is overstated. Not all LLM code is produced the same way. Code produced through substantial human creative input still falls under copyright, at least the way things are now. Besides, nothing legally prevents placing code under a license. Enforceability is the question, not permission.
It's a bit like saying speed limits don't apply on private property, therefore you can't have any traffic rules on your private racetrack.
Because it's Bun. Which is practically the use case testimonial of Zig.