I don't want your PRs anymore

As the maintainer of ghidra-delinker-extension, whenever I get a non-trivial PR (like adding an object file format or ISA analyzer) I'm happy that it happens. It also means that I get to install a toolchain, maybe learn how to use it (MSVC...), figure out all of the nonsense and undocumented bullshit in it (COFF...), write byte-perfect roundtrip parser/serializer plus tests inside binary-file-toolkit if necessary, prepare golden Ghidra databases, write the unit tests for them, make sure that the delinked stuff when relinked actually works, have it pass my standards quality plus the linter and have a clean Git history.

I usually find it easier to take their branch, do all of that work myself (attributing authorship to commits whenever appropriate), push it to the master branch and close the PR than puppeteering someone halfway across the globe through GitHub comments into doing all of that for me.

Conversely, at work I implemented support for PKCS#7 certificate chains inside of Mbed-TLS and diligently submitted PRs upstream. They were correct, commented, documented, tested, everything was spotless to the implicit admission of one of the developers. It's still open today (with merge conflicts naturally) and there are like five open PRs for the exact same feature.

When I see this, I'm not going to insist, I'll move on to my next Jira task.

I know when I run into bugs in a project I depend on, I'll usually run it down and fix it myself, because I need it fixed. Writing it up the bug along with the PR and sending it back to the maintainer feels like common courtesy. And if it gets merged in, I don't need to fork/apply patches when I update. Win-win, I'd say.

But if maintainers don't want to take PR's, that's cool, too. I can appreciate that it's sometimes easier to just do it yourself.

But i feel like it was always true that patches from the internet at large were largely more trouble then they were worth most of the time. The reason people accept them is not for the sake of the patch itself but because that is how you get new contributors who eventually become useful.

Past month or so I implemented a project from scratch that would've taken me many months without a LLM.

I iterated at my own pace, I know how things are built, it's a foundation I can build on.

I've had a lot more trouble reviewing similarly sized PRs (some implementing the same feature) on other projects I maintain. I made a huge effort to properly review and accept a smaller one because the contributor went the extra mile, and made every possible effort to make things easier on us. I rejected outright - and noisily - all the low effort PRs. I voted to accept one that I couldn't in good faith say I thoroughly reviewed, because it's from another maintainer that I trust will be around to pick up the pieces if anything breaks.

So, yeah. If I don't know and trust you already, please don't send me your LLM generated PR. I'd much rather start with a spec, a bug, a failing test that we agree should fail, and (if needed) generate the code myself.

Delaying what?

Also, at the point they actively don’t want collaboration, why do open source at all?

Strange times, these.

That's a unicorn.

If I'm lucky, I get a "It doesn't work." After several back-and-forths, I might get "It isn't displaying the image."

I am still in the middle of one of these, right now. Since the user is in Australia, and we're using email, it is a slow process. There's something weird with his phone. That doesn't mean that I can't/won't fix it (I want to, even if it isn't my fault. I can usually do a workaround). It's just really, really difficult to get that kind of information from a nontechnical user, who is a bit "scattered," anyway.

0: I liked BurntSushi's Rust projects since they are super easy to edit because they're well architected and fast by default. Easy to write in.

Code formatting is easy to solve. You write linting tests, and if they fail the PR is rejected. Code structure is a bit tricker. You can enforce things like cyclomatic complexity, but module layout is harder.

I guess my point being that it's become pretty easy to convert back and forth between code and specs these days, so it's all kind of the same to me. The PR at least has the benefit of offering one possible concrete implementation that can be evaluated for pros and cons and may also expose unforeseen gotchas.

Of course it is the maintainer's right to decide how they want to receive and respond to community feedback, though.

Thank your contributor; then, use the PR - and the time you’d have spent reviewing it- to guide a reimplementation.

https://steve-yegge.medium.com/vibe-maintainer-a2273a841040

95% of this is covered by a warning that says "I won't merge any PR that a) does not pass linting (configured to my liking) and b) introduces extra deps"

> With LLMs, it's easier for me to get my own LLM to make the change and then review it myself.

So this person is passing on free labour and instead prefers a BDFL schema, possibly supported by a code assistant they likely have to pay for. All for a supposed risk of malice?

I don't know. I never worked on a large (and/or widely adopted) open-source codebase. But I am afraid we would've never had Linux under this mindset.

I know my code base(s) well. I also have agentic tools, and so do you. While people using their tokens is maybe nice from a $$ POV, it's really not necessary. Because I'll just have to review the whole thing (myself as well as by agent).

Weird world we live in now.

The fact-of-life journaling about the flood of code, the observation that he can just re-prompt his own LLM to implement the same feature or optimization

all of this would have just been controversial pontificating 3 months ago, let alone in the last year or even two years. But all of a sudden enough people are using agentic coding tools - many having skipped the autocomplete AI coders of yesteryear entirely - that we can have this conversation