Hi Twice,
Thanks very much for your proposal and effort. It's thoughtful,
comprehensive and would help us build a better community.
I'm +1 fully support on this proposal.
Best Regards,
Edward Xu
On 12/1/2025 3:05 PM, hulk wrote:
Thank you for putting together such a thoughtful and timely proposal.
I fully support establishing clear, pragmatic guidelines for
AI-assisted contributions to Kvrocks.
Your proposal hits the right balance: it encourages the productive use
of modern tools
while protecting the project’s review capacity, code quality, and
legal compliance.
I’m +1 on moving forward with this proposal.
On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 at 14:50, Twice <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
LLM-based “vibe coding” is becoming more common, and we are already
seeing AI-assisted patches in the wild. To keep the project healthy
while still benefiting from these tools, I’d like to propose a
lightweight guideline for AI-assisted contributions to Kvrocks.
________________________________
Goals
Protect reviewer bandwidth
Kvrocks is a small community with limited review capacity. We want to
avoid being flooded by low-quality or hard-to-review AI-generated PRs.
Use AI as a benefit, not a burden
We should be able to use LLMs to speed up development and improve
quality, while avoiding the confusion, noise and legal risks they can
introduce.
Stay aligned with ASF policy
All AI-generated content must comply with the ASF Generative Tooling
Guidance and ASF licensing policies.
________________________________
What is not allowed
Fully LLM-generated PRs that the author does not understand are not acceptable.
Typical signs of such PRs:
The author cannot explain what the change does or why it is correct.
The author cannot discuss the impact on Kvrocks’ behavior.
The patch ignores existing project conventions or design choices, and
the author cannot justify them.
In these cases, it is usually better to:
Open a high-quality issue describing the problem, expected behavior,
and context.
Discuss possible solutions with the community before attempting a patch.
________________________________
What is allowed (and encouraged)
Using AI tools as an assistant is welcome, as long as:
The human author remains responsible
You understand the change you are submitting.
You are able to answer reviewers’ questions.
You are willing to revise or rewrite AI-generated parts during review.
You understand the relevant code
You have read the “How to Contribute” documentation.
You have at least a basic understanding of the parts of the codebase
you are touching.
You are transparent about AI usage
In the PR description, briefly mention if AI tools were used and for
what (e.g. tests, docs, initial draft of implementation).
If there are small pieces of code that you don’t fully understand,
call them out explicitly and ask for help.
Example comment in a PR:
“Lines 120–160 in foo.cc were suggested by an LLM. I understand the
overall logic but I’m not 100% sure about edge cases around
replication. Feedback is welcome.”
________________________________
ASF Generative Tooling Guidance
All AI-assisted content must follow ASF rules, including:
No incompatible licensing terms introduced by the tool.
No hidden or undisclosed third-party code.
When in doubt, contributors should review the ASF Generative Tooling
Guidance and 3rd-party licensing policy, and ask the community or ASF
Legal through normal channels.
We may recommend adding simple provenance markers (e.g. Generated-by:
<Tool> in commit messages), but this can be discussed further.
________________________________
For reviewers
Reviewers are encouraged to:
Ask whether AI tools were used if the patch looks heavily machine-generated.
Check that the author understands the change; if not, suggest
converting it into an issue or closing the PR.
Prioritize PRs with clear problem statements, tests, and explanations
over opaque AI dumps.
Flag suspected ASF policy or licensing issues for PMC / ASF Legal follow-up.
________________________________
Evolution of this policy
LLMs and ASF guidance are evolving quickly. This proposal is
intentionally simple and should be revisited when:
ASF updates its Generative Tooling Guidance, or
New tools significantly change how we write or review code.
In the long term, if tools become strong enough (for example, to
reliably assist with review in a compliant way), we can relax or
adjust parts of this policy.
________________________________
Next steps
I propose we:
Discuss this on the list and refine the text if needed.
Once there is rough consensus, add a short “AI-assisted contributions”
section to "How to Contribute" in the website.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome.
Best,
Twice
