Humans are bad at writing secure code, and GNOME developers are no exception. GNOME is primarily written using unsafe programming languages where simple mistakes in our code lead to devastating consequences for our users, and we make these mistakes all the time. No matter how much we try, GNOME developers will fail write secure code...
Perhaps more accurate to note it’s a hobby project, or one where I’m acting as a hobbyist. (I’m a computer science professor.) It’s correct that I don’t bother soliciting feedback on this one as it’s just a personal project that amuses me, and that lack of code review does create more opportunities for bugs to linger. But that said, many , many bugs escape many rounds of code review in the real world too. It seems silly to not take advantage of LLM review if it’s providing a good ratio of accurate feedback to false positives.
I meant no disrespect by calling you a hobbyist, sorry about that. My point is, we are people, and they’re the GNOME project, and applying the same standards to us and to them would be unfair.
We should be able to gain power that’s otherwise inaccessible to us by LLM reviews, and they shouldn’t need it, at least, they shouldn’t need it as much as we do.
And they certainly shouldn’t throw their hands up and say “if you disagree with our perspective on LLM use, you’re insane or lying”.
Perhaps more accurate to note it’s a hobby project, or one where I’m acting as a hobbyist. (I’m a computer science professor.) It’s correct that I don’t bother soliciting feedback on this one as it’s just a personal project that amuses me, and that lack of code review does create more opportunities for bugs to linger. But that said, many , many bugs escape many rounds of code review in the real world too. It seems silly to not take advantage of LLM review if it’s providing a good ratio of accurate feedback to false positives.
score 1 · canonical
I meant no disrespect by calling you a hobbyist, sorry about that. My point is, we are people, and they’re the GNOME project, and applying the same standards to us and to them would be unfair.
We should be able to gain power that’s otherwise inaccessible to us by LLM reviews, and they shouldn’t need it, at least, they shouldn’t need it as much as we do.
And they certainly shouldn’t throw their hands up and say “if you disagree with our perspective on LLM use, you’re insane or lying”.
score 1 · canonical