CL (change list) is Google speak for a PR [1].

So, likely: Gemini Flash, Argon, Carbon [2]; and Claude Opus [3]. Maybe more.

https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/developer/cl-d...

https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/ge...

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-finally-lets-all-engi...

The models are great, but the experience resonates. It really depends on what you're doing, and ultimately, how much you care. A 10k LoC PR that feels “tacked on” should help you guess the size of the code base.

So do you care about getting 10k LoC to review, in a 1M LoC code base? How about 3 such PRs? How about reviewing another half a dozen, from colleagues? And doing that 2 or 3 times a week?

It depends on how you define brittle.

Functional code that is perhaps overly defensive or specific in ways that will require updating it in the future? All the time.

What many do not yet understand is that the maintenance burden is a fraction of the effort that it takes you to review the code, much less iterate on it.

I see people on here talk about a supposed eventual collapse of maintainability if they do not review or understand the code.

In reality this never happens. The latest models can salvage and refactor even the biggest mess; all you need to do is ask.

They could probably do it even if source code isn't available and you only have a binary to work with.

I don't know how you can expect a useful answer to that question without you and OP syncing up on what you're working on. The experiences of, say, a python network programmer vs a C/C++ GPU engineer are going to be worlds apart.

I think a lot of pointless arguments on HN stem from a failure to realize that "software" is too big of a field to generalize much of anything.