On 2023-06-23 09:02, pinoaffe wrote: > Nicolas Graves via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." > <guix-devel@gnu.org> writes: > > In other words, I don't think a LLM could make it easier/faster to write > package definitions.
I mostly agree, what might be useful however would be the capacity to propose and re-test a patch series that fails on a very common / easy to fix error (a forgotten input, a type of error which usually means the test has to be disabled (network access... )) or that could improve a patch series (fixing linting warnings, improving commit or package description). In other words, helping the review process for guix commits which I think is one of the points where it can be improved substantially. Maybe a workflow like "get the patch series to evaluate on qa.guix.gnu.org" --> "if there are linting warnings or errors, process the logs and make a useful default answer for the patch sender / or a new patch series proposition" might help. I'm just suggesting because I've seen the opportunity ;) -- Best regards, Nicolas Graves
