It would be nice if specific offending portions of the codebase were highlighted. As of now, it’s hard to see why one should use this fork. Also, since the source is available, anyone can just compile a past version of vim.
Agreed. Without the context it just feels like a petty reaction. For all the reader knows, it could be completely unrelated to AI. The repository owner could’ve had a falling out with the maintainers regarding features or may be trying to inject their own malicious code into the fork.
A cursory search didn't turn anything up in the vim repo or elsewhere. I can see why the authors of the fork wouldn't want to stir up drama, but I am really curious too.
It’s not about specific offending portions, it’s the principle of having any LLM contributions at all. There’s a group of people who are so opposed to this stuff that they object to its mere presence anywhere.
the lesson here is dont put those comments into your commits. use the tools you want to write code and just use them. it's nobody else's business. if someone overuses AI (which is common) it's quite obvious anyway
These "Co-Authored-By" messages are added automatically by Claude Code when it makes commits on its own, although you just need to instruct it not to do so.
Agreed. It's impossible to enforce a user to disclose whether their commit has any AI influence or output anyway. Hard forks like this are just a short-sighted reaction.
If the person behind this fork has been active in FOSS or commercial development at all in the last 3 years, The odds they've never come across undisclosed AI-generated code that looked reasonable has to be close to zero.
This kind of news are about nothing. Tell me in a year, even in 3 months, how your fork has been doing. Clicking Fork on gh and writing a blog post is not a fork. A fork is a lot of work. Color me surprised if this will even keep up with the upstream just filtering out the AI commits.
I would guess it means they accepted AI generated submissions into the vim codebase.
There's a discussion in the EVi repo about needing to find people who know vimscript. Funny enough, I am planning to use contributing some vimscript to an extension as my first AI coding agent project partly because I don't know vimscript well. Although that does mean it'll be hard to critically evaluate the output. I can compare it to the rest of the code in the extension at least to make sure it fits the style.
Why am I entirely unsurprised that this anti-LLM hard fork is hosted on Codeberg? At this rate, how likely is it that Codeberg is just going to become a wasteland of abandoned ideological forks (with the exception of one or two major projects) by next year?
> At this rate, how likely is it that Codeberg is just going to become a wasteland of abandoned ideological forks (with the exception of one or two major projects) by next year?
From what I've read of Codeberg it's user base is a tad tetchy and has a tendency to make mountains out of molehills. It was more of a comment on Codeberg than the project itself.
This does not inspire confidence in the maintainers.
Did I miss something ? Where is the AI Taint coming from ?
Offending commit https://github.com/vim/vim/commit/fc00006777594f969ba8fcff67...
Just Claude as a co-author.
If the person behind this fork has been active in FOSS or commercial development at all in the last 3 years, The odds they've never come across undisclosed AI-generated code that looked reasonable has to be close to zero.
There's a discussion in the EVi repo about needing to find people who know vimscript. Funny enough, I am planning to use contributing some vimscript to an extension as my first AI coding agent project partly because I don't know vimscript well. Although that does mean it'll be hard to critically evaluate the output. I can compare it to the rest of the code in the extension at least to make sure it fits the style.
I don’t know. What makes you curious about that?
Don't be shy. Tell us what you really think.