←back to thread

Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

(github.com)
493 points todsacerdoti | 7 comments | 25 Jun 25 23:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.694s | source | bottom
1. jekwoooooe ◴[25 Jun 25 23:50 UTC] No.44382879[source]▶
When will people give up this archaic practice of sending patches over emails?
replies(3): >>44382930 #>>44383031 #>>44383045 #
2. SchemaLoad ◴[25 Jun 25 23:56 UTC] No.44382930[source]▶
Sending patches over email is basically a filter for slop. Stops the low effort drive by PRs and anyone who actually wants to invest some time in to contributing won't have a problem working out the workflow.
replies(2): >>44382962 #>>44382982 #
3. ◴[26 Jun 25 00:00 UTC] No.44382962[source]▶
4. jnwatson ◴[26 Jun 25 00:04 UTC] No.44382982[source]▶
AI can figure out how to send a patch via email a lot faster than a human.
5. MobiusHorizons ◴[26 Jun 25 00:14 UTC] No.44383031[source]▶
likely when it stops being a useful way to cut out noise
6. gerdesj ◴[26 Jun 25 00:17 UTC] No.44383045[source]▶
When enough people don't want to do it anymore. Feel free to step up, live with email patches, and add to the numbers of those who don't like it and say so.

Why is it archaic if it works? I get there might be other ways to do patch sharing and discussion but what exactly is your problem with email as a transport?

You might as well describe voice and ears as archaic!

replies(1): >>44387329 #
7. jekwoooooe ◴[26 Jun 25 13:42 UTC] No.44387329[source]▶
Archaic:

Very old or old fashioned