From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail02.haj.ipfire.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4f0Kb96vZxz3322 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2026 20:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail01.ipfire.org (mail01.haj.ipfire.org [IPv6:2001:678:b28::25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519) (Client CN "mail01.haj.ipfire.org", Issuer "R12" (verified OK)) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4f0Kb63DYBz2xLt for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2026 20:17:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail01.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4f0Kb42Rhkz5bF; Mon, 26 Jan 2026 20:17:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003ed25519; t=1769458657; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QIuLBY5AuGTdhnp0itNVtkTPnzowBOxyqtvvAMcC2wI=; b=KjvKXiUXNV1/67Du5qiIxdrSjVvDifcvlpGSsJkfmlX62FWNIPm2rqWyCswx73/FTjYNxG /Pt8ouiwHjDnCuBA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003rsa; t=1769458657; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QIuLBY5AuGTdhnp0itNVtkTPnzowBOxyqtvvAMcC2wI=; b=Y3sQaOFY7kNS8/6U4V5rbpcBGllRan5vtdxRQUZiJAzEHCHxn1b9soaTksu+kO6hF4FgaL Jq6Sjn9ag4Qi/BKBH3X/VRLD5VEK4Fe0TJa46fful6GJauXNgtRM4BonmIgBQPAtvda/a2 jpFraeuBsg87DegsELr3ZO98rTTwgmPopTpdk5Tf6oG3tRzyELj32BbVnJIUobcSi67Nta aTGBz0aCgpvBhNeZUCb4SV7V6IR7LjSnYbZlDr0k+Ydg0AX0SsyWUS4KqLv7+7ABa/Va7O nnrc4QfhamnLZUwqXVDU7NQcslz7Jx60gP63H47Bs2mJHgnc5K/p3SPuA+jYUQ== From: "Jon Murphy" To: "Michael Tremer" , "Stefan Schantl" Subject: Re[2]: An AI Usage Policy for IPFire Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 20:17:33 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <73B417BD-FF07-4721-8BAA-101A5087C53D@ipfire.org> References: <825C0B91-4C7B-4352-9469-4148E6337AA0@ipfire.org> <53ba3fe3aa6c9384fb1e5c5dc547802dd9558baa.camel@ipfire.org> <73B417BD-FF07-4721-8BAA-101A5087C53D@ipfire.org> Reply-To: "Jon Murphy" Precedence: list List-Id: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: Sender: Mail-Followup-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would prefer to keep the ipfire-2.x repository on Github. For me,=20 Github is much easier to work with and search. If it helps, I volunteer to keep an eye on push requests, respond to=20 them as needed, and then close them. Jon ------ Original Message ------ >From "Michael Tremer" To "Stefan Schantl" Cc development@lists.ipfire.org Date 1/26/2026 11:13:56=E2=80=AFAM Subject Re: An AI Usage Policy for IPFire >Hello, > >Sorry for not replying any earlier=E2=80=A6 > >I wanted to write up some more thoughts about basically closing our GitHub = account. This has been a long standing thought that I had since a lot of O= pen Source projects have taken this step. Possibly for other reasons, but I = don=E2=80=99t believe that we are benefitting much from our GitHub account = at all. > >So initially we started this because we wanted to make sure that IPFire wi= ll be available to more people. A GitHub search won=E2=80=99t show us unles= s we have a copy of our repository, and it was also intended as a backup in = case our Git server is down for a moment. > >The backup is probably the only thing that is still a valid argument to me= . Otherwise, we have no option to disable PRs and we have seen a lot of peo= ple who have always been ignoring any hints or even willingly went against= it and still opened any issues and PRs there. This has just created extra w= ork with no noticeable outcome. > >Other open source projects are prominently moving away from GitHub because = of Microsoft=E2=80=99s influence and although this argument is not as stro= ng for as because we are not using GitHub as our primary space for any sour= ces, I agree with the intentions of those projects. > >Initially I thought that we should only remove the ipfire-2.x repository,= but now looking at it again, I don=E2=80=99t see why else we would host any= thing there whatsoever. Currently we have libloc and ddns copied there, too= : > > https://github.com/orgs/ipfire/repositories > >Does anyone have any feelings about this? Should we just close it and ther= efore the whole PR problem in the test is resolving itself somewhat? > >-Michael > >> On 25 Jan 2026, at 17:38, Stefan Schantl wr= ote: >> >> Hello Michael, >> >> thanks for working this out. >> >> I've read through the document and it is very good written. Similar to >> Adolf I would clarify a bit more what a "Pull request" is and what kind >> of requests we accept and which not. >> >> Best regards, >> >> -Stefan >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> While eating my lunch today I stumbled over the AI Usage Policy that >>> the Ghostty project has come up with. I quite liked it and I think >>> that IPFire should also have a policy for AI usage in place. We have >>> not received such an overwhelming amount of AI-generated patches >>> unlike Ghostty and cURL, but we have received some that have been >>> very low quality and when asked questions, the person who submitted >>> this patch raised his hands and dropped out. This is just a waste of >>> time for everyone involved. >>> >>> This policy that I have slightly adapted for IPFire demands that any >>> kind of AI usage is allowed, but has to be disclosed. The point is to >>> avoid any kind of low-quality, time-wasting submissions. I too >>> believe that we should make this known upfront so that we can all be >>> on the same page and make the job easy for us in case we need to >>> reject any kind of patch submission. >>> >>> On the other hand, the policy is encouraging AI usage as there are >>> indeed tasks where AI can help. But just because it is AI-generated >>> does not mean that something is good. >>> >>> I would like you all to have a look at this and see if this is >>> working for you as well or if you would like to have any changes made >>> to it: >>> >>> https://www.ipfire.org/docs/devel/ai-policy >>> >>> All the best, >>> -Michael >> > >