Il giorno mar 5 ago 2025 alle ore 16:17 Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> Le mar. 5 août 2025 à 15:19, Otavio Rodolfo Piske <angusyo...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > "I think it's a good idea, my only concern is giving too much trust to AI > > agents." > > > > +1. > > > > I think we can possibly include a reference to this in the instructions. > I > > know certain AI coding agents tend to try to be more autonomous by > default > > (i.e.: by authoring commits, for instance) and I think we could include > > instructions specifically prohibiting that. > > > > I disagree. The fact that the agent did the commit or raised the PR does > not mean anything wrt the underlying patch quality. I often ask an agent > to commit and raise a PR after multiple iterations (AI and/or manual) and > the fact that the agent did the commit (it can easily write better commit > messages) or raised the PR, is completely irrelevant to the quality of the > patch. Committing / raising a PR does not imply merging to master. > > On a related note, we have a lot of commits that break the build which are > authored by humans. I'd much rather improve that ! > Indeed, the important part is always passing through a PR and review process. And yes, it's true sometimes we commit code breaking the build, so yes we should improve on that side too. > > > > > > I also think it goes in line w/ the ASF instructions in the sense that > the > > contributor is the ultimate person responsible for the origins of the > code. > > > RIght. But if he is responsible for the code, let him be and not add > burden. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 12:03 PM Andrea Cosentino <anco...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Absolutely, that's what I meant. Don't blindly trust them. > > > > > > Il giorno mar 5 ago 2025 alle ore 12:01 Guillaume Nodet < > > gno...@apache.org > > > > > > > ha scritto: > > > > > > > Can that be solved by asking for PR reviews ? > > > > > > > > Le mar. 5 août 2025 à 11:37, Andrea Cosentino <anco...@gmail.com> a > > > écrit > > > > : > > > > > > > > > I think it's a good idea, my only concern is giving too much trust > to > > > AI > > > > > agents. > > > > > > > > > > They still need to be supervised. > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno mar 5 ago 2025 alle ore 10:40 Otavio Rodolfo Piske < > > > > > angusyo...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to bring to discussion that we add a set of a dedicated > AI > > > > > > instructions file (e.g., INSTRUCTIONS.ai) to the Apache Camel > > > > repository > > > > > > (core and other sub-projects). > > > > > > > > > > > > The purpose of these files would be to define how AI-powered > coding > > > > > agents > > > > > > and tools should behave when generating code for this project. I > > > > believe > > > > > > this would be beneficial for a few key reasons: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > *Enforce ASF Generative Tooling Guidelines:* It would help us > > > > formally > > > > > > adopt and point to the standards defined by the ASF on the use > > of > > > > > > generative AI, ensuring all contributions are compliant. > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Software Foundation Legal - Generative Tooling > > > > > > <https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html> > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > *Maintain Project Coding Standards:* We can use it to instruct > > AI > > > > > tools > > > > > > on Camel's specific coding patterns, conventions, and > > > architectural > > > > > > principles. This will help maintain the consistency and > quality > > of > > > > the > > > > > > codebase. > > > > > > 3. > > > > > > > > > > > > *Define Clear Guardrails:* It allows us to establish a > > reasonable > > > > set > > > > > of > > > > > > rules and constraints for generated code, promoting security, > > > > > > reliability, > > > > > > and adherence to best practices from the start. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is becoming a standard practice in other major open-source > > > > projects. > > > > > > For example, the Linux kernel community is already discussing and > > > > > defining > > > > > > similar guidelines to ensure AI-assisted contributions are > > > > constructive. > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux Kernel Mailing List Discussion > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250725175358.1989323-1-sas...@kernel.org/> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that taking this proactive step will help us harness > the > > > > > benefits > > > > > > of AI tooling while safeguarding the integrity of the project. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to open a discussion on this. What are your thoughts? > Any > > > > other > > > > > > projects in the ASF that have defined these instructions and that > > we > > > > > could > > > > > > inspire our guidelines on? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Otavio R. Piske > > > > > > http://orpiske.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ------------------------ > > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Otavio R. Piske > > http://orpiske.net > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet >
