Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Changing how we develop Ladybird

ladybird.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 602 posts

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#241

Post by jeremyjh »

adrian17 wrote: post #211

Reading this leaves a weird taste in my mouth, since the author tends to regularly make nontrivial >1k LOC PRs (sometimes several per day) and merge them on the same day with no reviews at all. This is even ignoring the LLM aspect; I don't know what % of them are assisted, but even if it was 0%, this isn't the pace of development I'd be comfortable with.

Yes, I have lost faith in some open source project maintainers that are doing this. There is an open source platform we've used for years at work (we use the paid Enterprise version of it) that introduced some pretty grotesque security flaws and when I looked into it I realized AI had taken over the project - you can clearly see it in the commit log whether it is attributed or not, just based on volume and frequency. It was very disappointing.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#242

Post by jll29 »

Interesting how this post coincides with the Leyden declaration in mathematics: both documents are abot how human-human trust ("in good faith") is eroded by large language models, because a substantially-sized artifact does not necessarily attest to substantial human effort and skills.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#243

Post by ghosty141 »

ivanjermakov wrote: post #177

The core problem is that we don't have a PR respect system. 10kLOC from an unfamiliar person with empty GitHub is much different from a pal regularly contributing that you personally know. Integrating some kind of proof-of-stake system might be a way forward for open source. Nobody wants to shuffle through a pile of low-quality PRs written by LLM.

the ghostty developer introduced a system similar to what you describe!

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#244

Post by fc417fc802 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #229
fc417fc802 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's not the situation nor the feeling everywhere in the world, certainly not where I live Do you expect your government to navigate whatever transition might await us in a manner that works out well for the vast majority of your countrymen? What about the governments of other major world powers? Even if your local government does all the right things, will the world as a whole end up in a good place? That said,…

> Do you expect your government to navigate whatever transition might await us in a manner that works out well for the vast majority of your countrymen? No, but I expect them to do the best they can, with the information they have available, as always, as they just like me, are just humans. Trusting the legislative branch of my government is different from "so you think it'll work out well for everyone then huh?", bt…

> Trusting the legislative branch of my government is different from "so you think it'll work out well for everyone then huh?", btw.

Agreed, and that was exactly my point. Concern about possible impacts of a technology were expressed and you responded that you trust your government. But that's not the same as thinking that everything is headed in a good direction and doesn't require intervention.

> Why does it matter how much I trust the legislative branch from other countries?

Because in a globalized world if everyone else goes to shit you will probably also experience significant negative effects even if it's not as bad.

> for the most part, we (humanity) are getting incrementally better.

It seems to me that it's prudent to perform a risk assessment rather than assuming that everything will work out just because things seem to have been going well enough so far.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#245

Post by nh2 »

troupo wrote: post #79
nh2 wrote: post #63

> There will not be a [..] process for submitting patches by [any] means > Outside involvement still matters: clear bug reports So I can find a bug, I can fix it, but I am not allowed to tell them how exactly I did it. Instead they have to re-figure it out. The team must be thrilled to re-do work they know was already put in by others, repeatedly. As a user-and-eveloper, why would I sink time into a project with such…

> So I can find a bug, I can fix it, but I am not allowed to tell them how exactly I did it. You can still submit a bug report and tell them exactly how you did it. > Reviewing code fixes is strictly easier than coming up with them yourself. Unless it's hundreds or thousands of AI slop PRs each pretending "here's a bug I fixed it"

> You can still submit a bug report and tell them exactly how you did it.

Can you? The announcement says "There will not be a separate process for submitting patches by other means. We do not want to create a shadow contribution system through issues, comments, email, or forks".

So I, as a human, describe in prose which changes I made to e.g. 20 files?

How is that in the spirit of fighting LLM slop?

Also, if I can do that, the LLM slop contributers can also ... do that.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#246

Post by arzig »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #218
hypfer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now I see communities being affected. When you kill PRs, you not only kill the code contributions, but also massively impact the other, non-tangible contributions like ideas, eyes on code, etc. That feels way worse. These "contributions", while they did exist in small quantities, mostly were not actually what you've described there. Instead, those boiled down to unsolicited opinions, hostile takeover attempts, valu…

It always seemed like a weird default to let people (esp strangers) submit PRs that weren't tied to an issue nor approved. What do you mean you just spent a week implementing something in secret? AI makes it extra silly because now you can craft up your unsolicited code change in minutes, making it extra obvious that code changes should spawn from real discussion and agreement. TFA is part of looking for new processe…

Good faith PRs were also suffering under the current model. Ive opened PRs by hand on small projects to try and fix personal issues that probably affected others. Then the PRs languish for months or in one case literal years under the deluge of ai slop being spammed at the repo. I’m not going to ping the maintainers constantly when I know they are struggling so I’m left running my fork and no one else gets the benefit.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#247

Post by ghthor »

I wasn’t around much before GitHub so. I believe I tried submitting patches to the XFCE project but I didn’t get anything accepted to FOSS before GitHub.

In this type of system, if I am competent and can contribute how to do I? By reviewing the maintainers PRs, helping fill out more info for bug reports / root causing?

There had to be some way for a competent user to get involved enough to become a familiar handle to the maintainers and be seen as a possible future maintainer/ expert contributor right?

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#248

Post by robinsonb5 »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #215
vasco wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can also take some refuge in things like steam engines or electricity or the internet and how if you're just on the cusp of those you'd have similar feelings, but many years later here we are, still with jobs and meaning. A lot of people say this time is different but I guess when electricy showed up people would've said the same? I certainly remember people predicting that Manhattan would stop existing during the…

> A lot of people say this time is different but I guess when electricy showed up people would've said the same? No. Electricity didn't raise the skill floor all that much. Certainly nowhere near the human skill ceiling. > the internet would kill all street level businesses That was never going to happen overnight, if at all. But online retail (and food delivery, etc) does seem to be slowly but surely eating away at…

> But online retail (and food delivery, etc) does seem to be slowly but surely eating away at local shops so I think it's within the realm of possibility.

Online retail eating away at local shops is a problem with two aspects - one of which is largely ignored and much more pernicious.

Yes, many people are shopping online which reduces footfall in the town centres. If this were a case of all the existing businesses simply shifting away from physical storefronts to virtual ones it would merely be unfortunate.

What's far worse is that the vast majority of the business that shifted away from a diverse collection of bricks-and-mortar stores now goes through one of a very few online retail giants.

Likewise, a couple of food delivery apps are parasitising takeaway food businesses.

And now we're allowing a handful of AI giants to tollbooth software development.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#250

Post by [deleted] »

progbits wrote: post #149
torben-friis wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is certainly a certain... entitlement? (It's not the perfect word, but I fail to find a proper term) from some of the vibe crowd. Like an attachment to the output and refusal to accept that most of the work was not theirs. It is seen in the way they approach contributions but also in regular language. I created X, insistence that their 'curation' was very influencial to the output, difficulty to mention LLM con…

I've experienced the following sequence more than once at work, and I remain baffled by it each time: - Receive a huge vibecoded PR for complicated new feature. - Complain that this needs some design doc to figure out the right approach first. - Author says no need for design doc, easier to have vibed implementation and discuss the concrete code instead of abstract document. - I disagree (obviously), but review the P…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN