Yes, but he said it is not working. I don't know which step is not working.
The ASF mailing list configuration is very picky, at least to subscribe: you need to send an email, wait for a response and then reply that response again. Probably the for subscribe is similar process. Maybe some of these steps are failing. BR, Alan On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 12:47 PM Tim Hardisty <[email protected]> wrote: > Isn't unsubscribing done by sending an email from your subscribed email > address to: > > [email protected] > > On 03/02/2026 15:34, Pierre-Noel Bouteville wrote: > > Already done many Time > > Pierre-Noël Bouteville > > Envoyé de mon iPhone > > > >> Le 3 févr. 2026 à 16:20, Matteo Golin <[email protected]> a écrit > : > >> > >> Hello Pierre, > >> > >> I believe you've been suggested to use the unsubscribe link on the NuttX > >> website already and that didn't work (correct me if I'm wrong). > >> > >> At this point, I suggest you block the NuttX mailing list address from > your > >> email client. > >> > >>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026, 10:17 AM Pierre-Noel Bouteville < > [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Some one can remove m’y e-mail from this list ? > >>> Pierre-Noël Bouteville > >>> Envoyé de mon iPhone > >>> > >>>> Le 3 févr. 2026 à 16:10, Sebastien Lorquet <[email protected]> a > >>> écrit : > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> I think NO AI in my nuttx. But I fully know that the addiction is > >>> strong, and it cannot be verified what developers do in their corners. > >>>> So their own developer responsibility in reviewing and avoiding slop > >>> code applies. > >>>> > >>>> HOWEVER, that said: > >>>> > >>>> It should be totally forbidden to loose precious maintainers time with > >>> slop pull request. > >>>> You're very few and very busy and you should not be trolled with slop. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think nuttx should be as rigorous as curl with respect to bogus and > >>> low value ai pull requests and bug reports. > >>>> > >>>> Sebastien > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 2/3/26 16:04, Matteo Golin wrote: > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> This week in particular there has been a large number of AI-generated > >>> pull > >>>>> requests submitted to NuttX and NuttX apps. Most of these used AI to > >>>>> completely generate PR descriptions and/or commit messages. In some > >>> cases, > >>>>> AI was used to generate documentation and possibly code. > >>>>> > >>>>> The quality of these PRs are low, containing unnecessary information > >>> that > >>>>> summarized the diffs (i.e. files changed, lines inserted, etc) and > >>>>> repetitive summaries. The dangerous aspect of these PRs is that the > vast > >>>>> majority of them contained completely generated test claims with no > logs > >>>>> (and in some cases, generated logs) to back them. When asked about > the > >>> test > >>>>> claims, the authors stated that the PR was AI-generated and removed > all > >>>>> claims. > >>>>> > >>>>> This is starting to become a trend, with a lot of recent PRs > containing > >>> the > >>>>> same "files changed" section. They are difficult to review because > they > >>>>> don't communicate the changes clearly, have unnecessary information > and > >>>>> often contain fabricated information. Some of them contain multiple > >>> commits > >>>>> which should be reviewed split across multiple PRs and change > summaries > >>>>> which omit information about commits. PR authors are also refusing to > >>>>> provide logs or adequate explanations in some cases. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think it's time for the community to discuss a stance on AI > generated > >>>>> submissions. I don't think it's enforceable to prevent contributors > from > >>>>> using AI in their PRs, and some contributors may be using it to > assist > >>> them > >>>>> in a moderate way (I personally do not think any AI use is good, but > I > >>> know > >>>>> this is not realistic for many people). I think that PRs which > contain > >>> AI > >>>>> generated descriptions or code should be blocked by a change request > >>> until > >>>>> they are modified to improve the code quality or description quality. > >>> This > >>>>> isn't really a change, that's what we do with poor code submissions. > >>>>> However, I think contributors should be warned to stop using AI > output > >>> if > >>>>> they are not verifying it, and there should be a stance from NuttX in > >>> the > >>>>> contributing guidelines regarding AI usage/guidelines. If it becomes > a > >>>>> pattern for certain contributors I think their PRs should start > getting > >>>>> closed. > >>>>> > >>>>> What does the community think? > >>>>> > >>>>> Matteo > >>>>> > >>>>> Here are some of these AI PRs: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3381 > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3397 > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/ < > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18223 > >>>> nuttx > >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18223>/pull/18223 > >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18223> > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18266 > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18221 > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18219 > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18217 > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18216 > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18205 > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18207 > >>>>> >
