So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven Christ if it’s coming for rsync of all things software is clearly done
-
@JeremiahFieldhaven Christ if it’s coming for rsync of all things software is clearly done
@sinbad @JeremiahFieldhaven What an idiotic thing to do to a piece of software with a venerable past and whose key feature is its reliability. All these OSS maintainers just burning decades of trust over a perceived 10-ish % “efficiency gain” with snowballing amounts of evidence to the contrary, and a looming bubble implosion on the horizon.
-
L limebar@mastodon.social shared this topic
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven aw, goddamnit!
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven Tridge is using AI? LOL, that's damn funny to be honest. Also I thought he only worked on core Samba code. Maybe he should only work on core Samba code.
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven Well this has unlocked a new horror.
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven Whoooaah whoa whoa. Actual Tridge would never really actually break something (in that way).
A tridgeposter…?
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven no! Not rsync! How many of my beloved cli programs must fall to ai slop development?!?!
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven These posts are like war correspondence: They got tridge
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven I hope the overtime auditing & controlling for breakage across countless machines is worth the purported drudgery-slaying efficiency gains of that vibed PR.
I fear this is just the beginning.
-
@JeremiahFieldhaven
Oh damn it all. Tridge has fallen@mav @JeremiahFieldhaven
Andrew Tridge has fallen down,
fallen down, fallen down, ... -
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven fork everything, it's all slop now and needs new caretakers
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven https://aidirtylist.info/citations/andrew-tridge-pushes-flurry-of-code-slop-to-rsync-respository/ thanks for catching that. I've cited your post here
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven I strongly recommend (if you haven't already) point this out to the rsync maintainers. "Tridge" should have their commit privileges suspended until they can review AI slop.
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven figures
-
@JeremiahFieldhaven fork everything, it's all slop now and needs new caretakers
@cap_ybarra @JeremiahFieldhaven on rsync, this is scary. It's getting to a point where just stopping updates for a while on crucial systems seems safer than applying them.
-
@cap_ybarra @JeremiahFieldhaven on rsync, this is scary. It's getting to a point where just stopping updates for a while on crucial systems seems safer than applying them.
@mavu @cap_ybarra @JeremiahFieldhaven 3.4.3 looks like mostly security changes (couple bugs say security fixes broke their thing, so it might be the case for your problem). If you only ever rsync with trusted machines, you're all good, but more broadly sitting out future security fixes is less appealing than sitting out future features
-
@JeremiahFieldhaven https://aidirtylist.info/citations/andrew-tridge-pushes-flurry-of-code-slop-to-rsync-respository/ thanks for catching that. I've cited your post here
@gryphonmyers @JeremiahFieldhaven checking the GitHub repo i see a lot of recent regressions... Lovely
-
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
Revert to 3.4.1 and it works.
So I go look at the source in GitHub to see what might have changed, because there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the changelog.
Since 3.4.1, 36 commits by "tridge and claude"
Oh for fuck's sakes.
@JeremiahFieldhaven Do people not even read or test the output of these agents when using them? I've used them as a crutch, but never as a replacement, so I can at least understand what the output is before I push it to someone to review. It's more of a finding the spoons and the hours of typing away to finish something I want done so I can use it. I wish the same could be said of all these people inflicting unvetted changes on untold thousands or even millions of users.
-
@sinbad @JeremiahFieldhaven What an idiotic thing to do to a piece of software with a venerable past and whose key feature is its reliability. All these OSS maintainers just burning decades of trust over a perceived 10-ish % “efficiency gain” with snowballing amounts of evidence to the contrary, and a looming bubble implosion on the horizon.
@distractal @sinbad @JeremiahFieldhaven Though I'm not sure how much the 10-ish % "efficiency gain" is when I can ask an agent to solve a problem for me in 5-15 minutes, or I can spend literally hours poring over a code base to understand what I need to do to fix it myself.
-
@distractal @sinbad @JeremiahFieldhaven Though I'm not sure how much the 10-ish % "efficiency gain" is when I can ask an agent to solve a problem for me in 5-15 minutes, or I can spend literally hours poring over a code base to understand what I need to do to fix it myself.
@chris @sinbad @JeremiahFieldhaven Here's my question... is it really, solving the problem for you? Like, actually? Given all of the costs in the full context of how it operates?
I don't believe that it is.
Can you trust everything it outputs? Are you able to catch any problems with it 100% of the time? Are you somehow able to avoid it anchoring your thinking around a particular method?
Let's assume it does solve the problem, and that somehow a purely ethical AI is produced that magically solves the labor, environment, plagiarism issues, and that is correct 100% of the time.
Even if it does, you are slowly eroding your ability to solve problems of that nature independent of the agent.
No matter how careful you are, no matter how smart, how skilled, how well-versed.
You cannot beat cognitive surrender.
