I experimented a bit with the PR template - and I came up with this https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/60158#issuecomment-3718296162
Unfortunately we cannot use the .yml format as we do for issues and we cannot make any fields "mandatory" here. I think it's prominent enough and if someone does not check it but uses AI we can easily call-out on it. Any comments and suggestions are welcome in the PR of mine. J. On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 12:54 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote: > I like it in concept. To reiterate, it isn't the use of the generative > tool, it's the dependence on it that is the issue. I think we can add > checkboxes and required fields all we want, but people never read them. > The best we do is add it so we can point to it later, I guess. Thanks for > writing that up, Jarek. > > > > - ferruzzi > > > ________________________________ > From: Zach Gottesman via dev <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 12:53 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Zach Gottesman > Subject: RE: [EXT] [PROPOSAL] Gen-AI guidelines in contrib docs > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > the content is safe. > > > > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que > le contenu ne présente aucun risque. > > > > +1 to mandatory PR description field, as someone who spent time reviewing > one of the aforementioned PRs without realizing it was AI-generated > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 2:58 PM Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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] > > > > >
