Greg Hogan <[email protected]> skribis: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 3:59 PM Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote:
[...] >> Several people suggested distinguishing between using an LLM for >> exploration and using an LLM for authoring. > > How are we distinguishing exploration from authoring? Authoring means producing code. Remember that Guix has package definitions but not just. > Are we including running Guix commands under exploration? So that when > updating a library resulting in a dependent package failure (x1000) > the LLM could run `guix refresh` on the failed package and rebuild? Or > if the agent explores the failed log file, searches on the error > message, and finds the patch in a project PR/commit/email, the agent > could copy (not author) the patch into the repo and use a guix tool to > modify the package patch list? Yes. But again, as is already the case today, the person submitting the patch must be able to explain the change. >> For this reason, the first item lists specific uses, and exploration is >> not among those: >> >> 1. The project (defined as maintainers, team members, and anyone with >> write access to a Guix repository, including Weblate, or to Guix >> resources such as the build farm) **will not use nor encourage use >> of genAI** to author code or packages, to review code, to produce >> artwork, >> translations, or any other artifacts. >> >> Does this address your concern? >> >> If not, what change would make it acceptable to you? And what would be >> ideal to you? (The two answers may differ.) > > We also need to document what the project and contributors are > permitted to do with GenAI, including exploration. (This is your answer to making the pledge acceptable to you?) Isn’t it implicit, given that we document what we do not want? >> In short, we violently agree on the need for automation for package updates. >> My take is that we already have great tooling for this and we need to go >> the last kilometer to use it to its full potential. That’s where the >> low-hanging fruits are, as the Nixpkgs experience has shown. >> >> WDYT? > > I am not so certain that the community wants to automate package > updates. [...] > What has impeded us from building out these wonderful new features? I am not in a position to say what “the community” wants. A number of us contributed to these features. To me, we’re missing the last bit, most likely a bot sending pull requests similar to that of Nixpkgs, which was more difficult to implement before the migration to Codeberg. Ludo’.
