Hi all,
I did an experiment in order to properly understand our proposed new GCD
and associated pledge.
Perhaps we could add some explicit examples to the GCD to clarify
exactly what we want / do not want.
The `openshot` package was not building on the python-team branch. I
spent 20 minutes on it, and couldn't figure out what was wrong, so I
asked Codex. It took codex 1m17s. I tried to build the package 7
times, codex 2 times.
This is what I asked:
> We're upgrading Python in Guix to 3.12. Most packages now build
successfully, but the openshot package fails to build. Could you please
check why?
This is a simple 'good case' of genAI use (assuming that exists):
- It was only asked to investigate and explain, not to write code.
- It did not write any code.
- It properly explained what was wrong, letting me 'build theory'
- Code changes, commit message, P.R., and this mail was written by hand.
- It was 20 times as fast as me (and successful).
- It used 3x less package builds; probably a net positive in energy use.
The P.R., with the included codex output is here:
https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/pulls/8736
I suggest that you first fix the package yourself, and only then look at
the P.R., because then we can merge one of your fixes instead, so we
don't 'taint' the repository.
Could one of the sponsors of the GCD (or anyone) specifically explain
what was wrong here?
What should have been done differently? I would probably have figured
out what the problem was myself given enough time, or otherwise I could
have asked Nicolas and Sharlatan, and I see there is value in both. But
enough value? I doubt it.
(This would be a good opportunity to review the rest of the package too;
I deliberately did not make any other changes than strictly required.)
Hugo
On 15/5/26 17:19, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
1. The project **will not use nor encourage use of genAI** for its
code, packages, code review, artwork, translations, or any other
artifacts.
P.S. Since the pledge is not yet finalized, I don't think I violated
anything by 'not respecting' it. Nevertheless, to be explicit: I would
not have made this P.R. if we would have made the pledge. (I would just
have fixed the package in my own channel.)
