Pallets
Replies: 1 comment 4 replies
|
Sorry for jumping to conclusions too quickly. We get a huge ongoing wave of AI junk, and it has eroded our trust in unknown contributors, especially around certain patterns. I think I made it pretty clear what the red flags there were, and gave advice on what our policies were after. https://palletsprojects.com/contributing/llm-ai There is no requirement that we leave anything open for any amount of time. Regardless of the meta reasons for being wary of that PR, I also explained that I don't plan on implementing the feature. Leaving it open beyond that isn't a productive use of time. Typically topics are only locked after being closed for 2 weeks, so it's still possible to discuss further if something's only closed, but I didn't particularly want that conversation to continue. |
|
i have taken a look at #6138 myself - its a absolutely minimal, and incorrect change that has no design discussion, no tests and additionally the actual implementation is incorrect as well - i believe its absolutely right to crush that type of drive by even without ai |
|
Apologies for the terse nature of the PR. May I ask why you think the implementation is incorrect? |
|
If you had included any test which is part of a bare minimum you would have seen that you incorrectly turn something that's a object into a str of it Don't use terse as excuse when the bare minimum is skipped on multiple dimensions |
|
OK, thanks for the explanation. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
I wanted to come here from the Apache Software Foundation and comment on an issue one of our most pedantic and plentiful foundation level contrubtuors made in #6138 - but in less than one day you shut this down, This is is despite your incredible clearance rate with issues.
Maybe you are too aggressive about "random" contributors.
All reactions