7 ms·

I think a better frame would be «how could the maintainers have responded in a constructive, collaborative way upon learning about the tooling not being complia

I think a better frame would be «how could the maintainers have responded in a constructive, collaborative way upon learning about the tooling not being compliant with Emacs-standards, in a way which have helped land what was clearly a good faith effort aiming to make Emacs better?» Outright rejecting the patches was IMO not a pragmatic or constructive choice and will drive the wrong incentives wether you morally approve of it or not.

cenazoic 3mo ago
The patch author, while claiming LLM discussions are (implied "hidden") in "internal mailing lists", didn't link to the "constructive and collaborative" conversation that indeed occurred (publicly). That seems a sort of dishonesty itself. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-06/msg00515.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-06/msg00... In a different thread about a different LLM-generated package, here's RMS himself: > • As a disclaimer it was generated with LLM. I think ELPA has a > • prudent policy to not allow this for now until there is legal > • clarify, but does this apply to nonGNU-ELPA also? RMS: It does apply, for the time being. It is not a final decision, it is tentative. (link: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-05/msg00206.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-05/msg00...) GNU (and/or the Emacs project in particular) does not seem to be acting in ludditic or reactionary ways, but thoughtful ones.