Re: Merging AI-generated program code

>>> is only met by "the git history is not perfectly clean, we won't 
>>> evaluate even the concept" or "there was some assistance by AI, so 
>>> we are to assume that he never read his code and doesn't understand 
>>> it anyway"
>>>
>> I understand the frustration you describe, but let me point out that 
>> in both sentences, the part after the comma is//your interpretation. 
>> You were asked to clean up the git history, and it was suggested to 
>> discuss the general approach not in a merge request (which is usually 
>> used for code review). If I understand you correctly, we both agree 
>> that you sought feedback on the general concept, not an actual 
>> line-for-line code review. And given the large quantity of code, I 
>> can understand that a reviewer asks for some background and 
>> explanations before diving into the actual code.
> Not sure which two sentences you mean referring to one single (okay, 
> very long9 sentence with several commas. Frustration does not get less 
> if someone perceives things as "interpretation", independently how far 
> this is true.

I meant the two sentences in quotation marks above.

We all can but interpret what the other person might have meant to say; 
but putting that interpretation inside of quotation marks tends to 
misrepresent what the other person said.

>>> and pseudo-academic meta discussions like this one, or about if 
>>> creating code is allowed to change from how it was the ideology in 
>>> the 80s.
>>>
>> Sigh. I second David's request about avoiding the use of hyperbole.
>>
> This is your interpretation.

Sigh.

I'm out of this discussion.

Lukas