On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 06:00:50PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> wrote on 23/07/2026 at 10:00:13+0200:
If I push some work-in-progress, experimental code to a branch
just to see how it would go through CI, and someone else decides to
extract that crappy code from my branch and ship it, I think the problem
is with someone else, not me.
Nowhere did I state that humans can't do crap. It doesn't me that we
should push automated systems to do more crap based on these grounds.
But why should we not let us be assisted in doing crap if we're going to
do crap anyway? Bad people are going to do AI assisted crap, good people
are going to produce less crap if they are allowed to use assistance of
their choice.
We let people use arcane workflows maintaining their packages (whether
we like them or not), which makes the entry hurdle to understand their
packages higher. Forbidding modern ways of working (whether we like them
or not) also raises that bar.
Is that really what we want to do?
I think that "The submitter is solely responsible for the submitted
work" is sufficient in that case: I would be solely responsible for
pushing WIP stuff to a branch (and that's fine), and someone else would
be solely responsible for deciding that that code should be shipped.
Until you (or your agent) decides not to push in WIP but rather directly
on main.
If we repeat talking to "commit" or "push" as being the bad point, why
don't we just forbid AI tools to commit or push? I would probably
actually be WITH that rule.
Greetings
MraArc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
