On 2026-10-26 09:12, Mathias Gibbens wrote:
Picking at random a successful[0] and unsuccessful[1] LLM-generated review from the dashboard, the successful review consists of 734 words (~2.5 printed pages) and the unsuccessful review weighs in at a whopping 1,535 words (~5 printed pages). I haven't tried to fully read either report, nor spend brain cycles checking if the LLM output is legitimate or not. I just want to emphasize the many orders of magnitude change in review size that's being generated, and that uploaders may need to spend time trying to review and understand in this new process.
I skimmed the "unsuccessful" one. It is long because it is giving a whole bunch of specific examples of copyright mismatches. I read them and they look reasonable, helpful, and actionable.
The first one, for example, is that the project has "fuzz" directory with copies of blender.org, codeberg.org, ffmpeg.org, kernel.org, etc. The LLM is saying that these third-party websites are not authored by Google or the gumbo contributors, and thus the blanket `Files: *` copyright statement does not apply.
I tried looking at the actual package, and it seems that content is no longer present, so this seems like it was actually true and was subsequently fixed.
Item 3 is for utf8.c's copyright, which was subsequently fixed here: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gumbo-parser/-/commit/66977d04e3dafaec1ad6ca86111ed2011367420fThis review looks useful and entirely reasonable to me. This looks like a real win for both the person uploading the package (who gets immediate useful feedback) and the reviewing team.
-- Richard
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
