On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:05:45 +0200 Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agreed. Nguyễn Gia Phong (@cnx) and Jason Conroy (@conroy) suggested > an alternate wording for this, which I think should address this issue > (towards the bottom of > <https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/pulls/13>). What is the plan to make that compatible with the future GNU rules? - Would the text be generic enough and we'd wait until GNU releases its rules to accept commits made with LLMs, and then we'd then follow the intersection of both Guix and GNU rules? - We propose the text to gnu-prog-discuss to get a review? - We wait a bit? Or is the plan to go ahead and expect both rules to be compatible and then fix the discrepancy later on with a new GCD? In that case, what would we do with if the commits generated by LLMs that went in ended up not being OK? If there are very few of them maybe it woudn't be a huge issue as GNU didn't advise to remove previous commits made with LLMs, but then we might have issues if there is a big amount of commits. Denis.
pgpycIQyP4oMW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
