Hey folks, It’s great to see more contributions coming into Polaris! At the same time, the review load is pretty high, so it’s normal for some PRs to take longer to get reviewed.
I’d encourage more people to help with reviews. It is helpful even you don’t review the whole PR and look at the parts you’re familiar with and sharing feedback. For authors using AI, I think we should be the first reviewers of the code and docs it generates. At least read and understand what you’re submitting, and challenge its decisions. Do we really need this extra doc or a new interface? Can we solve the problem within the existing design? A few rounds of AI review, combined with your own judgment, can help catch issues that a single pass might miss. Few-shot is always better than one-shot, esp. with human’s insights. Taking responsibility for this initial review helps reduce the back and forth with reviewers. As I mentioned in my earlier email [1], please keep PRs small and well scoped. They’re easier to review thoroughly and usually have a faster turnaround. Even if AI makes it easy to produce a large change quickly, splitting it into focused PRs still helps everyone. Just my two cents. Curious what you all think. Thanks, Yufei [1] PR review and committership, September 2 ( https://lists.apache.org/thread/jdsc283vwbrff822kw2hh5nlb6qbw6x6)
