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?
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.
Any AI usage immediately discredits the software for me, because it calls into question all of their past and future work.
Oh boy, do I have bad news about 90% of the internet for you…
Linus sent an email recently to the Kernel Mailing List trashing AI slop and rejecting AI generated patches. The fact that he used it to play around with a script doesn’t invalidate the fact that he distrusts code written by LLMs when it actually matters.
you mean this statement? https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/08/linus_versus_llms_ai_slop_docs/?td=rt-3a
If yes, your statement does not really match what Linus said.
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.
Wow a differentiated opinion on AI use :)