> I never understood why so many people are horrified at the idea of small amounts of the machine-generated code being manually committed straight into the repositories.

If you haven't understood maybe you could think more about it, or ask, or reduce the hyperbole until you're looking at something reasonable.

The anount of code were talking about here is by no measure small, nor is it "horrifying" people. Your post reads like the kind of weird advocacy that shows up in Jira pissing matches.

I'm not talking about this specific AMD DRM code that's taking over the entire tree, I'm talking about the specific other examples that I've outlined in my prior message.

Instead of violating the HN guidelines by assuming malice and portraying me as never having bothered to think about the issue, why don't you educate all of us why exactly is it a problem to have the build lists and usbdevs/pcidevs artefacts be part of the repos of reputable open-source projects like OpenBSD / NetBSD? Specifically, addressing the lack of benefits that I've identified as existing in the status quo?

Because all these other people who have an issue with such practice, never bother to provide any convincing arguments why the rule should never be violated, either, and how the benefits that I've identified, aren't worth the hassle. They literally just don't even listen why we're doing it, and they never provide alternatives that fit the requirements and don't require lots of extra worse or hassle. And they're not even doing OSS, either, so, it's not like their code quality is even better in any way, because it's well known that the quality of the closed-source software is often far worse than OSS, especially when we're talking about OpenBSD here.