Personally, I think using AI tools has its advantages; they often help us quickly locate simple problems. For the Calcite community, we have many experienced reviewers, and as long as we don't completely rely on AI tools to review code, I think it's acceptable. As for contributors, it's best to explain their thought process behind the changes (or provide good code comments), and ideally, to demonstrate whether the changes are reasonable (of course, new contributors may not be able to confirm the reasonableness of their changes even without using AI). If these things can be done to a certain extent, it will reduce the time and effort reviewers need to put in.
Best regards, Zhen Chen ---- Replied Message ---- | From | Mihai Budiu<[email protected]> | | Date | 1/12/2026 06:03 | | To | [email protected]<[email protected]> | | Subject | Re: AI/LLM and Calcite contributions | I personally do not care which tools have been used as long as the result is arguably correct and reviewers that we trust can understand it. Mihai ________________________________ From: Alessandro Solimando <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 12:22 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: AI/LLM and Calcite contributions Hello, a recent discussion [1] made me realize that, as a community, we haven't made a precise statement if LLM-assisted contributions should be accepted, and in case how they should be handled. Dmitry cites [2] in the discussion (on the strict side of the spectrum), while I have seen more nuanced statements in the Apache foundation like [3] (fine as long as you understand and can justify all you submitted). I'd like to hear your opinions, and ideally update the contributors guideline accordingly, when we reach consensus. Best regards, Alessandro 1: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/4692#discussion_r2639007178 2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy 3: https://datafusion.apache.org/contributor-guide/index.html#ai-assisted-contributions
