According to the release:

Adds experimental PostgreSQL support

The code was written by Cursor and Claude

14,997 added lines of code, and 10,202 lines removed

reviewed and heavily tested over 2-3 weeks

This makes me uneasy, especially as ntfy is an internet facing service. I am now looking for alternatives.

Am I overreacting or do you all share the same concern?

  • patrick@lemmy.bestiver.se
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    It looks like that tool is more or less built by a single developer (you already trust their judgment anyways!), and even though the code came through in a single PR it was a merge from a branch that had 79 separate commits: https://github.com/binwiederhier/ntfy/pull/1619

    Also glancing through it a bit, huge portions of that are straightforward refactors or even just formatting changes caused by adding a new backend option.

    I’m not going to say it’s fine, but they didn’t just throw Claude at a problem and let it rewrite 25k lines of code unnecessarily.

    • mudkip@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 minutes ago

      Any AI usage immediately discredits the software for me, because it calls into question all of their past and future work.

    • sloppy_diffuser@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Something like https://graphite.com/ to create stacked PRs that are reviewable probably would have helped. Can be replicated with local LLMs or remote AI providers with locally configured agentic workflows. Never used graphite personally, but I’ve seen some open source maintainers use it to split up large PRs.