If it were critical I would set up an “email me on script run failure” wrap around the individual cron jobs. Simple exit code check, potentially with console output as email body is simple and useful.

I guess I don’t have many hosted side projects. Those I do, I don’t put them on separate domains. I doubt people use or care, so I haven’t added monitoring for individual projects specifically. I guess I could and should do that now that I established my own online monitoring without third-party free tier limitations.

I use Red Sift (free) for certificate monitoring, since Let’s Encrypt dropped expiry warning notifications. Given it’s automated, it’s never been an issue for my self-managed projects, though.

For is-online/is-reachable monitoring, after free services I used became more restricted, and none matched my simple needs, I created Meercat Monitor, which runs on my server and checks some of my and work related projects/services. Simple checks scheduled checks, email notification, and a simple history and status view. Something simple enough and open source so I can audit and manage sources.

What makes you think it’s a lockfile issue? If they sighted a patch upgrade then updated the lockfiles but then noticed a breaking change, then lockfiles are irrelevant.

If it’s actually like they claim, I understand the frustration. (Not that I know this project in particular or how it gets integrated.) Without clear versioning and/or changelogs/release notes managing upgrades is cumbersome, sometimes impossible.

In some cases I’ve had to ask for clarification in PRs because release notes were not clear, PR was not clear, and resolved ticket was also not clear on the thing or solution.

Apparently they had issues before, so maybe they could have expected “patch may not be patch-only”.

I don’t think there’s a particular need to defuse into a productive discussion. Something like that, with no repro or respect - lock and close, with a comment on why/that onproductive and disrespectful/what it could have been.

Tone should always be respectful. Something like this should have been a respectful, open suggestion, explaining the issues no clear semver causes.

If they don’t respond to your needs - you can accept it or leave/fork.

The first version included a ‘Fuck you’ but they edited it away.

:squint: :P

The title is non-telling, the metadata page description is non-telling, no post description. What is this about?

This community’s rule 3:

If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos

Looks like the video itself also has no useful description. Only an unlabeled ad.

Copying the generated AI summary from YouTube from the description section:

The PrimeTime analyzes claims made by Anthropic and Boris regarding the state of modern software development. By examining technical issues with Claude Code, this critique questions the narrative that coding is largely solved, suggesting that the current push toward fully agentic workflows might be misleading and potentially harmful to professional software engineers.

is one of the things LLMs excel at

Early on, one time, I misplaced my right hand and typed my sentence with keyboard-layout-offset characters. I was very surprised it answered correctly to a seemingly gibberish prompt.

?utm_source=chatgpt.com on “W4 Games” link. Did they summarize or generate through chatgpt and copied from chatgpt? It certainly doesn’t seem like deliberately designed link handling.

Linksource tracking/marketing chatgptcom doesn’t make sense to me on other websites. But it’s interesting that it effectively produces distributed chatgpt-source links.

Anything is better than nothing.

Go and Zig are serious languages. Go is especially established and has a big ecosystem and capabilities. You could stick with Go forever if you don’t want to expand afterwards.

Starting ‘simpler’ is better because it gives you successes. It keeps you going.

The developer used AI and it introduced bugs and that was bad for people.

Was it the AI that introduced bugs, or them, while working with AI there or in other parts?
Would the bugs not have occurred if they made the changes without AI?
Would they have made any changes without AI? Would we be better off without changes for security robustness?

You make it sound like a direct correlation. Having read their response, that seems like an assumption without reasonable foundation.

Changes always have a risk of introducing bugs.
I’m no friend of using AI without the necessariy expertise, but from their response, they seem to have taken a very thorough, reasonable approach, and they seem to have the expertise to do so.

I don’t know the degree to that, but bugs do happen occasionally either way as long as there are changes. In the article, they explain why the changes are necessary. Prioritizing security over no-change-stability seems reasonable and warranted.

This reasoning assumes any LLM-assisted change is faulty, right?

The linked article doesn’t make me concerned. They seem to have the expertise, seem to apply due diligence and good practice around (selectively) using LLM.

Can people not directly involved in and working on the project assess the risks well? Do we not have to depend on author and project leadership expertise just like we had to before with any parts of development, management, and tool and infrastructure use?

I haven’t looked up the original communication or drama, but I assume communication could have been much better. Maybe the commits didn’t say much about the reasoning and due diligence that they describe in this article? Other than that, how can you make a better judgment about the changes than them without taking a thorough look and assessment?

Have you read the linked article? They explain how they used AI. It’s not like AI produced the code and that’s it.

They also explain about this version and the next minor version.

In your eyes, is all AI-produced text and code slop? Or did you check on the Python tests they designed and implemented with the help of AI, and after analysis of that, you came to the conclusion that it’s slop (as in nonsensical, incoherent, faulty, or similar)?

Is that your assumption given that they’re using AI? Because it’s not at all what I have taken away from their article.

Is “not properly maintained anymore” your interpretation of them using AI? Or what do you base that on?

I have no idea. That was a long time ago.

/edit:

the origin stories of Fedora contributors – the moments that brought people into this project and kept them here

I guess, OP at least, is only about Fedora.

Was the second commitment cleanup?

I didn’t get that feeling at all. They didn’t make any such claims or used such wordings which I often see elsewhere.

Also, nobody actually knows if human intelligence is just finer grained stochastic prediction as well.

An interesting but valid argument. It doesn’t make AI better than it is, but any human contribution and change can and often is also faulty. People have gaps of knowledge, sometimes unwarranted confidence, other times lack of care, or just miss things. It’s not like we’re comparing the perfect human vs faulty AI.

If you don’t mind the security risk then you can of course use an older release.

I haven’t read the original rage/drama but I can imagine if from other drama instances.

This post is certainly a good, founded response.

There’s some valid concerns in AI usage, but unwarranted or inappropriate harsh criticism when it’s an established trusted developer and engineer - if we assumed good practice before then we could assume continued good practice. Maybe LLM is one point of increasing skepticism, but criticism should be open, respectful, and fair.

They invested a lot of time and effort into a public good project. In that context, they deserve at least respectful and non-worst-assumptuous criticism.