> LLMs open up the door to performing radical updates that we'd never really consider in the past. We can port our libraries from one language to another. We can change our APIs to fix issues, and give downstream users an LLM prompt to migrate over to the new version automatically, instead of rewriting their code themselves. We can make massive internal refactorings. These are types of tasks that in the past, rightly, a senior engineer would reject in a project until its the last possibly option. Breaking customers almost never pays off, and its hard to justify refactoring on a "maintenance mode" project.
> But if it’s more about finding the right prompt and letting an LLM do the work, maybe that changes our decision process.
I don’t see much difference between documenting any breaking changes in sufficient detail for your library consumers to understand them vs “writing an LLM prompt for migrating automatically”, but if that’s what it takes for maintainers to communicate the changes, okay!
Just as long as it doesn’t become “use this LLM which we’ve already trained on the changes to the library, and you just need to feed us your codebase and we’ll fix it. PS: sorry, no documentation.”
> But if it’s more about finding the right prompt and letting an LLM do the work, maybe that changes our decision process.
I don’t see much difference between documenting any breaking changes in sufficient detail for your library consumers to understand them vs “writing an LLM prompt for migrating automatically”, but if that’s what it takes for maintainers to communicate the changes, okay!
Just as long as it doesn’t become “use this LLM which we’ve already trained on the changes to the library, and you just need to feed us your codebase and we’ll fix it. PS: sorry, no documentation.”