I created a PR where I slightly modified the template - I found it annoying to have that big of a header and I think visible separation with horizontal line between the commit message and the question is quite a bit less confusing.
PR here https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/60531 On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 6:49 PM Buğra Öztürk <[email protected]> wrote: > I like it. I already saw it in a PR too :) Expecting from user to state AI > information would be really helpful. It generally visible but hard to > understand which parts. > > Bugra Ozturk > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2026, 15:35 Jarek Potiuk, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Merged. > > > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 7:09 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Go for it, I read through your explanations in my comments and I am > > > convinced about it. We can always reiterate to make it better in the > > future > > > after observing how this one spans out. > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 8:33 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks Amogh also Nicolas for the discussion and comments - I > responded > > > to > > > > your questions and did some adjustments, that hopefully might be > close > > to > > > > consensus. > > > > > > > > Everyone - feel free to still comment, I am watching and trying to > > > respond > > > > and explain or find ways to address them. I already got plenty of > > > > approvals, so I plan to merge it tomorrow and send "LAZY CONSENSUS" > on > > > the > > > > merged version. We can always change it later/revert if the consensu > > will > > > > not be reached, but from the comments I gather that we all share the > > same > > > > sentiment. > > > > Looking at many recent PRs - that it is badly needed as apparently > some > > > > contributors have very little idea what expectations we have and that > > > > submitting AI generated PR without reviewing it is very bad - for us > > and > > > > for them. This will hopefully help to educate them. > > > > > > > > J, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 6:00 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am +1 on this spirit as well and am particularly impressed with > how > > > > spark > > > > > did it > > > > > earlier in the cycle. > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed the PR template and have a few improvement suggestions > over > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 4:19 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
