Hi Yufei, Very timely email!
I second your invite for more reviewers. I also agree that all contributors using LLMs to generate code should review their PRs end-to-end as if it were written by another person, only then submit to the public Polaris repo. We may want to adjust the wording in AGENTS.md and Contribution guidelines to emphasise that. I think we also need to resolve [1]. I see it becoming an issue in PR reviews with new contributors. Cheers, Dmitri. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/p8qpsr9ww5t2mkcz0252pbwklh3s5yr8 Cheers, Dmitri. On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 1:09 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) >
