On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 12:05:56PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > On Sat, 16 May 2026 14:59:44 -0700 > Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On May 16, 2026, at 2:33 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I find it opposite: clogging commits with useless information, because > > > some arbitrary and completely closed-source tool did analysis means > > > nothing to me one year later when I look at the commit in the Git > > > history. > > > > This is simple not true: Sashiko is fully open-source, under Apache 2.0 > > license > > and the code belongs to LF. > > > Yes, the instance behind sashiko.dev is using > > Gemini 3.1 Pro LLM, which is not open-source, but it's not a fundamental > > limitation - > > Sashiko is supporting various LLMs, including open models - it's just a > > practical > > choice: to my knowledge the quality of open models is not on par with > > frontier closed > > models > > I would very much prefer using an open source LLM, even if not in pair > with latest paid models. > > > and it would require a non-trivial amount of hardware and infrastructure to > > run > > an open model at the required scale. > > IMHO the best would be to have them running on some infra that would accept > open source models (*). If there aren't enough resources to have our own > infra, there are offers out there which allows running open source models > like https://ollama.com/pricing (I never used myself). > > (*) For instance, Qwen3.6 is brand new and licensed under apache-2.0. > Not bad on my tests running it locally.
FWIW that's what I'm using locally coupled with llama.cpp to find bugs. And it does. Plenty of valid ones. It's greatly sufficient for most work. Willy
