To me, this is a negative and mostly irresponsible use of AI.
OP dumped a huge PR (edit: not actually huge) on the Mumble maintainers,[0] which didn't match project conventions. He left a bunch of unresolved conversations with Claude that are hard to follow because it looks like an insane person having a conversation with themselves.
Then, the Mumble maintainers gave him pretty polite, patient feedback, and he just ignored it. No follow up for going on three months. Granted, the maintainers left the PR in the queue for four months, so it's not like OP is the slowest link, but I definitely wouldn't point to this as a win when there's basically no traction on the PR or any indication this will be merged.
[0] https://github.com/mumble-voip/mumble/pull/7180
Edit: radlad is correct that the PR is not "huge" at ~300 LOC. I was reading on my phone and didn't check the PR size and mistakenly trusted OP's assessment of "huge."
[–] radlad 4 days ago
[–] 12345hn6789 3 days ago
This is not a huge PR under any software project in the world.
[–] ShadowOfThePit 4 days ago
[–] williamdclt 4 days ago
I do ensure these self-conversations are resolved so that the PR is clean when I ask other reviewers to have a look, and I don't think I'd do that on an open-source project. But I'm very much shrugging at this practice.
[–] mtlynch 4 days ago
To me, there's two things you can mean with a PR:
- Open a normal PR: I personally attest to the quality of the code, and I'm ready for the maintainer to review/merge it.
- Open a draft PR: I have questions about proceeding and want to show you a work in progress to give context.
Any kind of intermediate work to prepare it for the maintainers should happen in a fork, not adding noise in the official repo. When you're done experimenting in the fork, then it can go to the main repo.
The maintainers clarified they'd prefer a single "all-in" commit, and OP hasn't (yet) addressed that.
Also, unless I'm misreading this PR, it's 270 lines added, 20 removed. I certainly wouldn't call that "huge."