this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
472 points (94.5% liked)

Selfhosted

60093 readers
907 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require your active participation in selfhosting or related communities, or the post will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, and your account is at least 7 days old, your post is exempt from this rule as long as you continue to engage in comments.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Slotos@feddit.nl 67 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The size of that changeset means that it’s inherently unreviewable.

The commit history is something I’ve seen only in the PRs that even the most dysfunctional companies would demand a rewrite for.

Also, 2-3 weeks review? PostgreSQL support could be added in that time without the need for a damn „vibe check”. Hell, it would probably take less time than that.

[–] MirrorGiraffe@piefed.social 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

To be fair they would have needed to spend time testing the manual implementation as well.

The problem I see mainly is that even if this rolls out perfectly, the erratic and changing nature if llms still make it pointless as a proof of concept. Next time Claude might fuck up in a fringe way that's not covered by unit tests and is missed by manual tests. 

On the other hand I guess I've been guilty myself on numerous occasions to implement fringe bugs into production code, but at least I learn from it.

[–] Slotos@feddit.nl 33 points 3 months ago

I made my statement as a BDD/TDD practitioner.

The code goal of software engineering is not to deliver said code, but to deliver it in a framework that lets others—and consequently me in a week’s time—to contribute easily. This makes both future improvements and bug fixes easier.

Dumping a ~25000 lines changeset with a git history that’s almost designed to confuse is antithetical to both engineering and open source.