I am very happy with this. Three primary reasons 1. Open source is about collaboration rather than full ownership. I see it as a form of "help". 2. As you mention, it's just minor mechanical touchups, so shouldn't affect learning too much - and the responsibility of going through the commit to learn should be on the contributor too! 3. Number of PRs will go down at a faster rate. The project, I feel, currently needs this.
On 2026-10-06 08:17 UTC Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Hello everyone, > > In order to improve our "agentic AI" workflows, I have recently > changed my approach for pull requests that are "almost ready" and need > only small fixes, such as mechanical conflicts, typos, or minor > comment updates. I would love to get your feedback on this pattern. > > Previously, when a PR had one or two minor issues, I would approve it, > add inline comments specifying the necessary changes, and ask the > author to fix them. Recently, I have often adopted this approach > instead: > > - Make inline comments explaining the issue > - Rebase and remove conflicts if needed > - Apply the fixup myself (pushing directly to the contributor's branch). > - Comment and resolve my own inline comments. > - Approve and merge once CI checks pass. > > I only do this for small gaps, edge cases, mechanical fixes, or > documentation updates that do not alter the substance of the PR. The > PR remains primarily the author's work, with minor co-authored fixes. > > This pattern offers several benefits: > > - Efficiency: With agentic-assisted reviews, the AI already has the > context and proposed fix, taking only seconds to apply and push. > - Faster Merges: Eliminates additional review roundtrips and avoids > new conflicts from interim merges. > - Fewer Iterations: Prevents extra back-and-forth if a comment is > misunderstood or incompletely fixed. > - Keeps Educational Value: The author receives both an explanation > of the issue and code for the solution. > - PR Capacity: Frees up contributor PR slots sooner. > - Throughput: Helps us process a higher volume of PRs more quickly. > > The main tradeoff is that the author learns by reading rather than > doing, which could potentially lead to a more relaxed approach to > minor details. However, if restricted strictly to minor, mechanical > adjustments—while still using "Request Changes" for larger gaps—I > believe the benefits outweigh the downsides. > > I would love to hear what others—especially contributors and fellow > maintainers—think about this workflow. > > Best regards, > Jarek > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
