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

501–510 of 602 posts

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#501

Post by soerxpso »

bakugo wrote: post #287
simonw wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's entirely consistent with what they said here: > Whether code was typed by hand is beside the point. What matters is who is responsible for it once it enters the browser. Ladybird is becoming a browser for real users. The people introducing changes to it must be the people who decide those changes belong in the project, and who will answer for the consequences.

That's the philosophical argument. In practice, though, the effect of large unreviewed AI commits on the project and its users is likely to be the same regardless of whether those commits were prompted by a core developer or an outside contributor.

If the commit was prompted by a core developer, the developer knows what the prompt was. If it was prompted by a stranger, the core developer reviewing it does not know what the prompt was. The review attention required is completely different, because with an untrusted submitter you have to meticulously hunt down intentional security vulnerabilities obfuscated in the PR.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#502

Post by materielle »

js8 wrote: post #376

I am old enough to remember what happened to GCC. It was also developed by a closed group of maintainers, because "it couldn't work" as a bazaar-style development. Then EGCS fork happened and became more successful. I think closing contributions (due) to AI will be looked at in a similar way. Forks open to AI will appear, and take over. And people will return to the open model. I think it needs more proliferation of…

I’m not sure this is generally true, and you’re ignoring a lot of context around the specific situation of GCC.

Just to make a point: I could throw out SQLite as a project that bans open contributions and is wildly successful.

Also, as others pointed out, Linux is technically open contribution bazaar style by 2000s standards. But if you look at how to actually get involved, there’s way more friction compared to the average GitHub project.

I actually think GCC falls into the same category. Even though it’s technically open contribution these days, it’s not exactly a free for all where any AI agent can open a GitHub pull request and get it reviewed.

You have to mail patches to a mailing list and follow a bunch of super specific and arcane rules set by the grey beards.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#503

Post by dormento »

radlad wrote: post #498
helloplanets wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a project has a rule to not submit AI generated PRs, people should never submit AI generated PRs to that project. It's spam. Or if the rule is more nuanced than that in relation to AI, it should be respected. It's 100% an issue with the people with submitting these PRs. So, if someone has a history of having no issue with breaking project rules (let alone being arrogant about it), it should be a massive red flag a…

I can empathize with this view but I've also seen one line clear bug fixes rejected because CC signed off on it. There's no other correct fix - why do you care which pen I used to write it?

I don't really know if this would be the best solution, but we could maybe define a sliding LoC limit per PR? Also a limit on the number of open PRs per contributor. This way those small, reviewable contributions would get a fair shot at being landed instead of being blanket banned, and the maintainer overhead would be more reasonable.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#504

Post by potsandpans »

ian-g wrote: post #500
potsandpans wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair call out. My implied argument is not so much that "because llm was used, then llm must be used." The original argument proposed by the author is essentially distilled into, "because llm could be used, we must no longer accept public contributions." Which is, in my opinion, a disproportional and misguided overreaction. The llm was apparently good enough to do the byte for byte replica, so we know that it can be u…

I see where you're coming from, but I think it's less the fact that they _can_ use an LLM to do this and more that they can't guarantee anybody else has exercised equal diligence with their code or equal experience with browser engines. It's not unreasonable to feel conflicted about this, but at the same time, I wonder if they're starting to burn out on code review.

My point is, there will be people who figure out how to cope. And those projects will succeed.

Obviously, I don't have a crystal ball.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#505

Post by bigstrat2003 »

siwatanejo wrote: post #134
Hendrikto wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accepting contribution has never been a requirement for open source.

I know, but opensource was not just about freedoms, it was about community.

Open source has only ever been about freedoms. It has nothing to do with community.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#506

Post by qwm »

Yokohiii wrote: post #175
cpcallen wrote: post #42

On the one hand, if you grew up in the baazzar, moving to the cathedral might feel like the "death of open source" even if it is really just a return to an earlier way of working. On the other hand, while not accepting external code contributions will certainly improve their security posture it will also make it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood.

Open source development has become more and more superficial aligning with modern social network characteristics. It's more important to have an contribution, a active commit history, a few stars as a proof of pixel fame than the intrinsic value of the contributions or projects. Before the rise of github, open source projects were heavily walled gardens. Little clubs that gave you a stare when you entered the room. G…

> This isn't the death of open source. It's the death of the global village were everybody can freely roam and it's easy to interact. It's the resurrection of small, social, trusted communities. I hope this spreads to all of the internet.

This is definitely a microcosm of what's happening to the entire Internet.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#508

Post by [deleted] »

lukaslalinsky wrote: post #102
q3k wrote: post #78

It's surprising to me how many people here seem offended that someone might just not want their code. I guess it takes quite a lot of experience as a maintainer to realize that 'free' in 'free code contributions by strangers' is like 'free' in 'free puppy'.

What made open source great, is the fact that if you find a problem, you can patch it. It's what motivated me, anyway. Ladybird is not SQLite, it's under development and very likely will be forever. To me it looks like they are transitioning into a company, where this model makes sense.

[deleted]

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#509

Post by krapp »

thewebguyd wrote: post #420
Yokohiii wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source development has become more and more superficial aligning with modern social network characteristics. It's more important to have an contribution, a active commit history, a few stars as a proof of pixel fame than the intrinsic value of the contributions or projects. Before the rise of github, open source projects were heavily walled gardens. Little clubs that gave you a stare when you entered the room. G…

> I hope this spreads to all of the internet. It is. Unfortunately, its not happening with open platforms. Communities are migrating to private discord servers, and less is discussed in public/in the open. I think we should still separate "working in the open" from "allowing or not outside contributions." Outside contributions are fine to be denied, however I think work and discussions should still more or less happe…

Gatekeeping doesn't work if institutional knowledge is freely given to all, the entire point is that knowledge is only available to a select few and acts as a shibboleth to keep the tourists out.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#510

Post by Lerc »

crabmusket wrote: post #231
noIdeaTheSecond wrote: post #137

"A substantial patch used to imply substantial effort, and that effort was a reasonable proxy for good faith. That assumption no longer holds." I believe this is the key point the article makes and it's valid for most projects out there

The generalised form of this, which we are rapidly discovering, is that AI breaks the social contract that used to exist between an author and a reader (of prose, code, anything).

I think any such contract would have died with the first propaganda, or deliberate framing to advance an agenda.

I think assuming a writer had your best intentions in mind has been unwise for quite some time. Murdoch built an empire exploiting this assumption.

Post reply on HN