Re: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian

On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 06:00:50PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> wrote on 23/07/2026 at 10:00:13+0200:
>> If I push some work-in-progress, experimental code to a branch
>> just to see how it would go through CI, and someone else decides to
>> extract that crappy code from my branch and ship it, I think the problem
>> is with someone else, not me.
>
>Nowhere did I state that humans can't do crap. It doesn't me that we
>should push automated systems to do more crap based on these grounds.

But why should we not let us be assisted in doing crap if we're going to 
do crap anyway? Bad people are going to do AI assisted crap, good people 
are going to produce less crap if they are allowed to use assistance of 
their choice.

We let people use arcane workflows maintaining their packages (whether 
we like them or not), which makes the entry hurdle to understand their 
packages higher. Forbidding modern ways of working (whether we like them 
or not) also raises that bar.

Is that really what we want to do?

>> I think that "The submitter is solely responsible for the submitted
>> work" is sufficient in that case: I would be solely responsible for
>> pushing WIP stuff to a branch (and that's fine), and someone else would
>> be solely responsible for deciding that that code should be shipped.
>
>Until you (or your agent) decides not to push in WIP but rather directly
>on main.

If we repeat talking to "commit" or "push" as being the bad point, why 
don't we just forbid AI tools to commit or push? I would probably 
actually be WITH that rule.

Greetings
MraArc