Posts by swags@social.treehouse.systems
(DIR) Post #B4IUh3HV887phfpbRA by swags@social.treehouse.systems
1 likes, 0 repeats
@nina_kali_nina @konstruct @FritzAdalis @lanodan If you all want to look into it critically, feel free, but I wrote a response on itSee: https://social.treehouse.systems/@swags/115914027180419851I'm _okay_ with everyone doing this whole "blocking Claude" thing, but please don't immediately jump the gun for project maintainers who have had to put up with the bullshit!! We got rid of it, thankfully, but even then, that doesn't mean we just "all magically endorse it" and it kind if slipped in by a single developer who I've since talked to.The Claude one was a PR leached in by someone, but there were some copilot bits as well. There will be a no AI policy soon, so again, please don't take this as some bizarre last minute damage control... it was an issue well over with but Im now certainly a little topsy that people are gonna keep recycling this discussion :/ and it rubs me the wrong way too.RT: https://social.treehouse.systems/users/swags/statuses/115914027180419851
(DIR) Post #B4IUmPMGTbCjcac5xI by swags@social.treehouse.systems
1 likes, 0 repeats
@nina_kali_nina @konstruct @FritzAdalis @lanodan I appreciate the kind response, because I am still recovering from release.. :) trying to take it easy....Its a red flag for me too. I understand why people do it, but this is also a new trend, so I'm trying to light some awareness on when it occurs, that people should be critical, and not immediately jump the gun or ""harass"" project devs or whatever (not saying you were doing so, but it can happen, i imagine...im a bit anxious about it), because it affects us even though we absolutely don't want it. The copilot stuff too; it was an experiment by another dev who was told not to do so here. None of us are a fan here.We're not actually a large project, anyhow, maybe a large audience (thats a lot of foss stuff, actually). So its actually a bit easier to control, but its aproblem for all projects right now. Some are straight up endorsing it, some might be tight in reviewing AI stuff, some dont want a bit to do with it. Trying to aim to be the latter, but it still slipped through, and we aint perfect here. Its just what it is...
(DIR) Post #B4IVoXOXfPUn52G3Vo by swags@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nina_kali_nina @konstruct @FritzAdalis @lanodan I don't believe history was rewritten, we actually don't want to do that because its kind of important I suppose to leave mistakes in :PIts probably on a Co-authored-by snippet or some other git commit bit. You can grep git log and check. In any case, if we _did_ rewrite history, I am actually pretty certain that GitHub will not remove the "contributed" user that might, say, show up in stats or whatever.
(DIR) Post #B4IWSAwAaDIj0pt6Xo by swags@social.treehouse.systems
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lanodan @FritzAdalis @nina_kali_nina @konstruct It's most probably that will happen. Just haven't drafted up how we want it to look, it'll probably just be simple.Its also kind of been in the back of our minds. At this point its a "trade secret" rule to just not do AI commits or PRs, but writing it in stone would be nice.Rewriting history is gross in general IMO, yeah, even hiding old arguments that got heated or anything of the sort; I do not want to do things like that, because they are historically a bit significant to us, and shouldnt be hidden from other eyes even if it could damage our rep, its something to chew on for anyone.
(DIR) Post #B4UvKjujUA61vRHmSm by swags@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@navi @rose Why not try to upstream that?
(DIR) Post #B4W5EkKIEWD0AMyxge by swags@social.treehouse.systems
1 likes, 2 repeats
Systemd commits: userdb: add birthDate, familyTree, killCount, potentialThreat, incomeYearly, isOnDoNotFly to JSON user recordsOpenRC commits: add... puppies! ^.^ :P and also..... kittens!! (^ :3 ^) and remove GNUism to comply with POSIX definition that was denied in court 25 years ago but later standardized as of 2028. You'd hope.