> > We struggle with > regressions being introduced by low quality PRs so we update the > guidelines,
There was a period when we developed directly in the community, which inevitably led to regressions. But we promptly adjusted our development approach — we now only submit PRs after multiple rounds of internal validation, and we fully adhere to the community’s PR submission requirements. Xiaomi floods the upstream with low quality PRs/AI generated > PRs, we request changes to follow the contributing guidelines and Xiaomi > contributors respond with hostility. It seems that they would prefer not to > include testing or adequate descriptions and instead have company > committers approve the patches because internal reviews were performed. This statement is quite impolite, just like how you disliked the "stupid log requests". We have been submitting code in full compliance with the community’s rules. What we expect is genuine comments from the community reviewers, not a repeated demand for logs every time. For some bugs, we have already provided a clear description of the issues encountered and the modifications made. If a bug inherently has no valid logs available, where can we possibly get them for you? Take the following PR for example. https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18266 If you intend to conduct a genuine review of this PR, you need to have relevant background knowledge: first, you must read and understand the rpmsg/rptun framework (at the very least, have read through it); second, you need to know what sensor_rpmsg is and the purpose of this module; finally, you have to understand the specific bug addressed in this PR and how the current PR resolves it. Asking for logs without such background knowledge is simply self-deceptive. As a well-known saying goes: *Talk is cheap, show me the code.* I don't think NuttX should become a company "product" and I think the > contributing guidelines are reasonable to keep code quality high and save > reviewer time. I don't really see a middle ground considering that the > contributing guidelines were voted on and are improving the quality of PRs > that we merge. We have no intention of turning NuttX into a "company product". We have also been following the community’s submission process. What we hope for is simply that someone can truly understand these patches and provide practical, substantive comments. Matteo Golin <[email protected]> 于2026年2月4日周三 13:09写道： To be completely honest I don't know how to resolve these kinds of issues. > > The PR template that automatically appears contains exact descriptions of > what is expected in the description and where to find the contributing > guidelines. Many of the recent contributors ignore this and copy paste AI > output. In this PR you showed, the author said that descriptions require > too much information and so they use AI to write them. Yet, as you pointed > out, the PR is still missing things (breaking change indicator, description > of what was tested). That seems like willful ignorance to me. > > I have requested changes on these AI generated PRs and PRs missing > information to adhere to the guidelines, but I'm met with hostility that I > should simply trust contributors because Xiaomi has internal testing and > review processes. When the community stance was clarified that tests need > to be included and shown to work with the NuttX mainline, Xiaomi has > decided that they will no longer contribute to the upstream because it is > too much work. You can see that discussion here: > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18340 > > This also resulted in all Xiaomi patches under review being closed, which > is unfortunate. I don't see an easy resolution here. We struggle with > regressions being introduced by low quality PRs so we update the > guidelines, Xiaomi floods the upstream with low quality PRs/AI generated > PRs, we request changes to follow the contributing guidelines and Xiaomi > contributors respond with hostility. It seems that they would prefer not to > include testing or adequate descriptions and instead have company > committers approve the patches because internal reviews were performed. I > don't think NuttX should become a company "product" and I think the > contributing guidelines are reasonable to keep code quality high and save > reviewer time. I don't really see a middle ground considering that the > contributing guidelines were voted on and are improving the quality of PRs > that we merge. > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2026, 11:52 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hmm, discussion here is quite sad to be honest, but a good example of > > the problem with a clear summary: > > > > "@Otpvondoiats: @linguini1 I can understand that you don't welcome > > open source contributors, so please don't review my patches anymore." > > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18266 > > > > Whether it was AI generated or not we already see the general loss of > > trust. Maybe it is more important than we think. I hoped that > > Contributing Guide updates would make things easy by defining clear > > expectations for both contributors and maintainers. > > > > What is more, PR contains breaking changes that are not marked > > presented nor discussed correctly as expected, which is another > > problem to skip for now. > > > > Do we want to treat open-source as our own private playground where we > > can put whatever we want however we want without minding other people? > > > > Lets focus on how to improve things.. is it miscommunication.. > > misunderstanding.. purposeful ignorance.. enforcing changes? How can > > we meet in the middle? > > > > -- > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 4:04 PM Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > > 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 > > >
