I agree that tickets are important for code archeology. GHC seems to think so, too. I recall the GHC project going through great difficulty to migrate to a git forge while preserving ticket numbers, so that all the important comments and Notes that point to tickets wouldn't lose their context. :)
I really like Mikolaj's framing of slop-as-log dumps. That's pretty insightful. Sure, you can generate a log dump yourself, given the right setup and instructions. And I've spent a lot of time staring at logs that are mostly useless. Writing good logs is hard for many reasons; the result is that logs are usually, you know, sloppy. So just like unfiltered LLM content, logs are voluminous and low-signal.[1] Nonetheless, attaching e.g. a 1.2MB log dump on a ticket is still generally considered useful. But if someone were to come by, open a cryptic ticket and just paste in the log dump, I'm not sure I'd have the patience to figure out what is being asked. So, as long as LLMs generate sloppy descriptions[2], I think it's wise to recommend putting a human in charge of writing tickets as well as comments and Notes. Mikolaj's approach seems like a good one.
-Bryan
[1]: LLMs are *very good* at trawling through messy logs and picking out the important messages. Another parallel between log slop and LLM slop...
[2]: "As long as LLMs do X" is a pretty short timeframe. I wonder if ticket slop will even be a concern this time next year.