3 ms·

okay I had not read this or any discussions there (except the one linked in the post), but this looks weirder. the comment you linked is a dev responding to wha

okay I had not read this or any discussions there (except the one linked in the post), but this looks weirder. the comment you linked is a dev responding to what is very clearly a bot comment. I am sure they have good intentions and I have no reason to believe otherwise as I have no connection to the project whatsoever, but the original commit being 4-5 lines long (what did claude do then?) and the revert description is almost certainly written by an LLM makes in my mind the slop argument stronger. I hope if this doesn't come across as unkind towards the dev who gives their time and energy to the project. Grateful for that.

wzdd 4mo ago
It is certainly unkind, when a developer asserts the opposite of what you have assumed about their code, to double down and imply they are lying.
scottlamb 4mo ago
> the original commit being 4-5 lines long (what did claude do then?) I've said "rebase onto <newbase>" and let it handle all the merge conflicts. I wouldn't expect this particular commit to conflict with anything, but it could have been part of a big series where it'd be worth doing that instead of running the rebase command yourself. It wouldn't surprise me if I picked up some Co-Authored-By:s along the way.