Re: Ballot option: Allow AI-Assisted Contributions

Marc Haber <[email protected]> Tue, 4 Aug 2026 08:49:36 +0200
Newsgroups gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi,

I don't know what actually happened in the rsync world, but who would 
download and compile upstream rsync for a backup for crying out loud?

Did rsync _actually_ break? Did they actually do a release with the 
"broken" code? Or did that only affect people running their backups from 
git head?

On Sun, Aug 02, 2026 at 08:14:25AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>What started it was that the rsync maintainer decided to use an LLM 
>and they *broke* rsync. Only when people noticed their backup systems 
>were no longer working, did those people start reading the changelog. 
>There they found out the reason that it was broken, namely that the 
>maintainer had apparently decided to start using an LLM (and they 
>obviously weren't doing a careful review and/or using good tests).

Would it have been the same if they had incorporated a broken patch 
written by a human? If there was real breakage, my opinion is that this 
was a human error of not testing correctly and not reviewing a patch 
properly.

>The story here is not "if you use an LLM, you risk being harrassed". 
>The story is "if you use an LLM, you risk breaking your code".

I don't follow here. You risk breaking your code if you change it, 
regardless how the change originated.

You know, LLMs dont put out unreadable encrypted machine code that 
cannot be reviewed by a human. They write a programming language that 
the package maintainer most probably knows so they can review the code.

>If you break such an essential package, I think it is reasonable that 
>people get angry.

I have broken adduser, I have broken sudo. And I got heat for that, yes. 
I am scared that this head is going to get worse just because I might 
happen to use a modern tool to improve the software I maintain.

>I do not expect that that they actually wanted the 
>maintainer to die, but presumably they said that. I do not think that 
>should be considered harassment, because it is not a threat. And in 
>this context, I would give the victims of the breakage some space to 
>express their anger in ways that may not be entirely appropriate.

Wishing another person to die is NEVER appropriate.

Greetings
Marc