Thanks Jarek for starting the proposal. As I approved also in the
devlist my signal, I am +1 on it.
As like in Spark (did not know about this, they did it in 2023!) I'm
also for adding similar to PR template. Then nobody could claim they
have not seen / read it. Not all read the contributions docs.
On 1/6/26 20:44, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
Question raised in a PR - adding here for better visibility:
Apache Spark has a PR template item about the usage of AI added in
apache/spark#42469
Shall we also add a note into
https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
?
Here is the content of PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE of Spark - we can likely also
make it optional or mandatory checkbox in the PR ?
WDYT?
There is a bit of friction if we make it a mandatory field to fill, but
maybe it's worth it ?
J.
### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
<!--
If generative AI tooling has been used in the process of authoring this
patch, please include the
phrase: 'Generated-by: ' followed by the name of the tool and its version.
If no, write 'No'.
Please refer to the [ASF Generative Tooling Guidance](
https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html) for details.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 1:24 PM Aritra Basu <[email protected]> wrote:
Overall I'm for this, was about to add some comments but unable to do it ,
getting some errors. Will add once I get home. Mostly in ways of adding
some more lines to hammer home the cost of these spammy prs and updating
some sentence structures. But fully onboard with the spirit of it.
--
Regards,
Aritra Basu
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026, 3:42 pm Jarek Potiuk, <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello here.
We have recently - like almost everyone else - started to receive some
Gen-AI generated PRs that are creating some distractions - recently we
closed 25(!) PRS of a contributor that was clearly doing PRs without
understanding what their AI proposed, without review or even a touch of
understanding what they do:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues?q=is%3Apr%20author%3A%22Arunodoy18%22
Some of those PRs looked "plausible" but either tests were completely not
working or the changes themselves were inconsequential.
We discussed it in private@ and I think it's a good idea to add clear
guidelines on how to use Gen AI for contributions, point out bad
behaviours
and make it very clear that similar usages of Gen AI will not be
accepted.
We should be clear about expectations we have towards such PRs - while at
the same acknowledging that it's perfectly fine to use AI as long as our
expectations are met.
I also added one thing that is important - it seems that people do such
PRs
partially because they want to boost their reputation, but as the example
of the contributor that had 25 closed PRs with a maintainer saying "you
are
doing it wrong, stop" - is ALL BUT boosting reputation - it's a clear
path
to being a) ignored by everyone b) reported to Github as scammer and
getting your account shutdown.
I proposed a PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/60158 and I
welcome
any comments - this might be a bit sensitive thing, so it's worth to have
more people comment and make sure the bias of single person and cultural
differences will not make it seem too harsh or somewhat drive out the
valid
contributions.
I do not think we need some specific voting on it, but once we give it a
few days of discussions and give people a chance to look at it - i will
merge it and send a LAZY CONSENSUS here - because I think we record it
as a
community approach that we all consent with.
Particularly *Arunodoy18* - if you are watching it and have something to
add in the defense of your PRs - maybe we misunderstood the behaviour and
intentions of yours and maybe you have some other perspective - this is
the
right time for you to step up and explain.
J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
