On 2026-07-28, at 23:53, Jean Louis <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry Eli, it seems you never got the point, and you keep asking what > is the purpose.
Note: I'm just an observer here, and I do not intend to take part in this conversation further - but just my 2 cents as a bit of an outsider. > - A commit was made that appears to be LLM-generated (beyond just the > commit message) > - The author self-certified it was not LLM-generated (but proprietary > Claude submitted the commit) I'm not sure I understand what it means that "proprietary Claude submitted the commit". I thought this was about a Claude-generated commit message. I do not think it matters whether it was the user who typed "git push" or whether the user told an "agent" sth like "now push it for me", and the "agent" issued the "git push" command. > Then you Eli then responds by questioning mu character and purpose, > while ignoring the procedural problem you raised yourself and keep > managing it. I don't think Eli questioned /your/ character nor /your/ purpose - but the purpose of the message. > Is it sufficient then to accept the honor word? The case itself shows > it is not. Personally, I am more convinced by Eli than you. > Let us say that Yuan or whoever else, submits commit with the > proprietary Claude, but code itself is written by hand. That is not > logical. He could submit the code as well by hand, it is few keys to > do. It is obvious that it is not logical, and so people will not > believe it. It is perfectly logical, as Eli explained earlier, to have a Claude-generated /commit message/ with a /hand-written/ code. > So question is right, not attack on you or anybody, but question of > governance. > > Obviously you can't see what I am telling you, yet you should be first > to understand it. It seems to me that the above two paragraphs contradict each other. Just my 2cents -- Marcin Borkowski https://mbork.pl --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
