15 hoursOpen source maintainers aren’t here to teach contributors how to write better code, we’re here for maintenance of the project. The review prevents shit getting merged. Humans write shit too. This is what reviews are for
- Azzu@leminal.spaceEnglish13 hours
That is just mostly wrong. Around 90% of the time, when you do a review, just fixing the issue that you found is much faster than explaining the issue and saying what needs to be done instead.
Reviews plainly are for educating the contributor to what constitutes “non-shit”(using your terminology) code on the repo. If that wasn’t the case, you could just not do a review and just change the code, without any interaction at all. Why would you communicate the change that needs to be done otherwise?
Rarely of course, something is so complicated that it actually takes more time to come up with the right code than do a review. But that is only a rare thing.
I don’t need to explain the issue, that’s what the issue report does
I’m sure every project is a little different. The one I maintain has well over 1000 merged PRs now (2000 if you count the old repo), and I’d be dead if I did even 1/4 of the work contributors do
Plus, even maintainers must have a code review and functional testing on their PRs, so doing the work yourself doesn’t relieve the human workload that must be done. It actually increases total maintainer effort to do the work yourself
- Azzu@leminal.spaceEnglish8 hours
I’m not talking about the work contributors do, obviously that is invaluable.
But if you do a review, and you see that a function should be extracted at one point to avoid code duplication, is it really faster to tell the contributor that a function needs to be extracted there, compared to just extracting it yourself as you see it?
The value of a review is collaborative truth finding and learning. If there is an LLM on the other end, that’s just not happening.
- MangoCats@feddit.itEnglish1 hour
The value of any given contribution is the same, regardless of whether the code was written by a seasoned developer, a neophyte as a first project, an LLM, a team of high school students learning the language, or space aliens - the code is the code, it helps or hurts exactly the same when merged with zero connection to who or what wrote it.
Caring about who or what wrote the code is applying prejudice. Prejudice works well in a lot of cases, but it’s no guarantee.
If you are accepting submissions from anonymous, or insecurely identified (same thing, really), contributors, they should all be treated with zero prejudice. You might think you know who or what wrote the code based on the name in the linked e-mail address, the way comments are (or aren’t) written, or a million other “tells” in the code that aren’t about the function of the code - that’s really irrlelevant. What’s relevant is: what does the code actually do after it’s merged.
If you’re trusting code because you think its “tells” track with seasoned developers, be prepared - very very soon - for maliciously crafted code full of “seasoned developer” tells to slip in backdoors and other malware, because bad actors are already using AI to mimic the things you want to see in a submission in order to gain your trust and lower your guard against them slipping in the things they want in your code base.
Part of being a maintainer is helping to onboard new contributors, this is why many projects have a tag for “good first issue”. Teaching people how to use the library/tool is part of that.
- 14 hours
Yeah, the Turing test has essentially been solved and at least in a digital format aka text, audio, video call it is now quite difficult to fully determine if what you are getting is from a human or a machine. I think it won’t be long now until there’s a push for a biometric verification for the web and the internet is essentially split into agents only, agents and humans, and humans only.
- MangoCats@feddit.itEnglish1 hour
We’ve been rolling along with weak IDs on the internet since the beginning. Strong, secure identification would change the nature of most of these problems. It would make anonymity a choice instead of an illusion, you want to be anonymous, you have to work at it. As things are, people think they’re anonymous, but they really aren’t - and yet most services treat people as if they are anonymous so people tend to act that way.
- 20 minutes
Yeah I guess one could do Tor over a VPN and that would do the trick.
I have some friends that are thinking of investing into some HiLow systems and making our own intranet. Or a meshnet. Seems like a fun project.
And no random bot scans, no agencies, no nothing but our own sites.
- MangoCats@feddit.itEnglish60 minutes
The problem with closed meshnets is: scale. Do you have “critical mass” necessary to keep people engaged and returning and creating new content?
- 3 hours
Add some USB dead drops here and there like little geocaches. Maybe add some offline Wikipedia backups and other Zim files with a kiwix server. You could manage text, a file server, some web pages, possibly voip and maybe video calls. Sounds like a good time. What’s it called, meshtastic? I have some vague experience / knowledge but never set it up.
Depending on terrain and population density you might be able to cover a large area. I’ve seen small scale implementations for highly urban areas using Bluetooth.
I wish meshtastic did any of that. Its more like a worse pager. Fun hobby to get into but its not all that great at reliable packets.
I mean might have to go back to old school with this type of repo, before internet repos were around, have to request for access to the code and confirm you cannot use AI to help you in any way before getting it
- makeshift0546@lemmy.todayEnglish12 hours
Then don’t be prejudice and invent worries about how the code was generated. We have prs for a reason.
