Re: LLM Commit in upstream `master`?!

Sean Whitton [2026-07-25 20:21:35] wrote:
> Eli, what do you think we should do?  Should we ask the Savannah admins
> to help us forcefully undo this commit, or is it enough just to replace
> the entry in the ChangeLog file exported after cutting the emacs-32
> release branch?
>
> I think the commit message saying co-authored by Claude even though the
> code in the commit was not co-authored by the LLM is a problem because
> we have no way of telling people that, in fact, this commit is not
> LLM-authored.  So I worry that people will keep finding it and then
> coming to the list to ask about it.  So I think that we should consider
> asking the Savannah admins for help.

I can't count how many times I've lectured package maintainers not to
force push on public branches unless it's a really
exceptional circumstance, and now I see that without even 24h of
discussion we've force-pushed because of some tiny bit of LLM infused
commit message which may potentially in some possible future cause some
hypothetical concern around the copyright on that commit message?

To me, this act falls squarely into the "bat shit crazy" category.

I know Emacs maintainers are not crazy at all, so I'll file the whole
event under "blunders", but I have to speak up and say this was a very
bad decision.  I don't use LLMs and keep praying that all the AI data
centers burn up in flames, but can we stop about this LLM paranoia?
LLMs cause enough real immediate problems that we don't need any
extra paranoia.

Yuan made a mistake because he misunderstood the policy, we learn, we
`git revert`, and we move on.  Force pushes are not for mere worries.


=== Stefan