Hello! the ASF provides guidance at [0]. The page is little vague unfortunately. I am also not completely sure how point 3 can be asserted during review without requiring disclosure (tagging with "Generated-by:" is only recommended, not required).
I am wondering if we should update the PR template [2] to include a bullet point about LLM use: 1) should we require to disclose LLM assistance, in that case I would suggest to adopt (or get inspired by) the linux kernel coding assistance rules [1] since those are very concise and simple while being compatible with the ASF guidance page as far as I see. It would essentially require to tag commits with "Assisted-by:" if applicable, everything else remains unchanged. See [2] for our current PR template. 2) remove LLM advertisement fields from commit headers/msgs and only allow humans as authors/co-authors no matter how the commit was created. (exception: trivial automation like dependabot) 3) something else? e.g do nothing and continue merging opinion: Although 2) would be tempting, 1) aligns more with the ASF recommendations. I do also think that it can be useful during review to know if LLMs helped to produce a commit. (Its sometimes easy to spot, but it would remove having to guess). best regards, -mbien [0] https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html [1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html [2] https://github.com/apache/netbeans/blob/30/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
