Follow-up on automation. Thanks again for the incredible insights so far. I have one follow-up question regarding tool design, especially in the context of recent advancements in LLMs:
If we were to develop an automated (or semi-automated) patch migration tool, should we treat the "Original Source Repository/Context" as a mandatory input? The Dilemma: From an algorithm perspective, having the original source code (pre-patch state) definitely helps the model understand the semantic changes better. The Usability Concern: However, based on this discussion, "hunting down" that exact original context seems to be a non-trivial task that requires manual effort or specific skills. My question to you: If a tool required you to manually provide the "Original Source URL/Commit SHA" for every third-party patch you wanted to port, would that friction be too high? Would you consider that a "deal-breaker" for using such a tool? Or should a practical tool strive to work like an experienced packager (as Michael described)—inferring the logic primarily from the patch file + the target codebase, treating the "original source context" as an optional luxury? I’m trying to determine if "Dependency on Original Source" is a feature or a usability bug for real-world maintainers. -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
