I would advise that each change (each fix, each optimization, etc) be submitted as a separate reviewable PR. Ideally, signed off by the contributor.
Furthermore in the case of each optimization a benchmark should probably be done. Thank you, Patryk -- Patryk Laurent, Ph.D San Diego, CA w: http://pakl.net/ > On Apr 13, 2026, at 07:40, R Frith-Macdonald <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> On 13/04/2026 04:35, Todd White wrote: >> Hi GNUstep Team, >> >> As an exercise to test out the latest Claude AI capabilities, we recently >> completed a comprehensive, bottom-up code audit of the GNUstep core stack — >> all seven repositories — covering libobjc2, libs-base, libs-corebase, >> libs-opal, libs-quartzcore, libs-gui, and libs-back. > > Thanks for that, it looks like very worthwhile work. I can't really comment > on other packages, but I'd certainly like to incorporate a lot of that into > GNUstep-base. In the areas of the base library I can see quite a mixture of > stuff, some of which is already known, other parts are quite new. For > instance, at one extreme having server verification off by default was a > decision from many years back, but one where a change was long overdue, while > at the other extreme the check for cross-thread autorelease pool draining > deals with such a perverse situation (I find it hard to concieve of any way > to accidentally do that) that it's quite delightful to have a check/fix for > it (though classifying it as a critical issue seems silly). > > In an ideal world, I'd want to see an individual patch for each issue. The > patch would contain the source code change, the corresponding testcases, and > a ChangeLog entry, but the cloned repos contain only the first of those. > > Can the LLM take the testcases it has generated and rewrite them as portable > (excluding objc2 and/or platform specific features or controlling them with > preprocessor macros) code as used by the gnustep regression testing > framework, and add them to the regression tests in each package? > > Thanks > > >
