chris <[email protected]> writes: > Actually, I'm not sure that I agree, especially regarding the usefulness > aspect. I don't think there is any.
If the contributor did check and understand all the code they suggest, then they at least did a review themselves. If that’s what they do, and they explain the benefit of the contribution themselves (I don’t mind them using an LLM to fix typos or grammar, but the content of the description must be their own), then I’d consider reviewing it. >> In other words, focus on quality, not on means. The contributor is the first who has to focus on quality. If they do that, and they actually know that what they propose has high quality (they can’t if they didn’t read it, they can’t if they don’t understand it, they can’t if it’s a wall of code too big for anyone to read, they can’t if they didn’t test it all themselves), then they clear the minimum bar. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. https://www.draketo.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
