Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> wrote: >>> b. They confirm that they have reviewed the LLM-generated code and >>> *also the code it changes* >>> 3. Contributors who wrote their own patches in the past may use LLM for >>> smallish patches. No new substantial features. >>> 4. Regular contributors may be trusted to use LLM assist for new >>> features. They are probably experienced enough to review the >>> generated code and make sure that it is reasonable.
>>> […] >> As a user, I wouldn't be happy with this. >> First, this establishes some kind of LLM priesthood where, >> when one is experienced enough, one can use an LLM. It also >> requires this LLM-generated code just to be "reviewed". >> History shows that in every field there are lots of people >> who consider themselves experienced and that "review" is a >> very loosely defined term that does not necessarily involve >> looking at the code. >> I want every contribution to be "owned". That means that a >> (human) contributor understands the code to the extent that >> they can answer questions about it and take responsibility >> if it introduces some bug or vulnerability. > +1. > I just use a different definition of the word reviewed. > In my book, review includes understanding what the code does and why. > It also includes understanding how the code fits into the rest of Org > code. > Actually, I do not quite understand the word "owned". Maybe I can make > it more clear what reviewed means or mention that for any kind of patch > we expect the submitter to understand the code being submitted and > answer questions about it. > […] I meant "own" in the sense that the contributor should take responsibility for it, for lack of a better phrase; i. e. if someone asks a question about it or points out a flaw in it, they will not respond with "let me refer you to ChatGPT" or something like that, but can answer the question themselves or say "I don't know". Tim
