Bruno Haible via Gnulib discussion list <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > Anyone out here who is familiar with LLMs (or wants to get familiar with > LLMs): How about using it not for coding, but for checking commits that > went into gnulib master? > > Since 2026-01-01, at least 17 gnulib commits contained regressions, that > had to be fixed subsequently. We often detect regressions by code review > or by a CI run. The problems: > - Not all commits gets reviewed from a different developer than the > committer. (Like many free software projects, Gnulib lacks good > reviewers.) > - The CI runs possibly a week later. (We can't increase the frequency, > because some CI runs fail due to network problems or other noise, > and this noise needs to be filtered out.) > > As a complement to these QA techniques, Paul Eggert suggests to use an > LLM to analyze the commits that have been pushed into gnulib master. > > This should be promising, because I read recently that LLMs outperform > all classical static analysis tools, when it comes to analyzing source code. > > I can't do this myself, because I'm already quite loaded with the existing > QA techniques and with my work on other GNU packages. > > Therefore, if you volunteer, please step up!
I'd imagine paying for it would be quite expensive. That is why I never bothered looking into it. The LLM companies have 6 month free (as in monetary) offers for Open Source [1] [2]. But that reads to me like they believe they will profit off you in 6 months. Also, they use stupid metrics like GitHub stars, so we would likely not qualify. It is especially ironic since their models suggest using our commands frequently... Collin [1] https://claude.com/contact-sales/claude-for-oss [2] https://developers.openai.com/community/codex-for-oss
