I'm positive on the latest revisions (non-voting opinion). The "Rationale" text added by Howard addresses a lot of what's being discussed here.
Chris On Wed, May 13, 2026, 9:47 AM Even Rouault via gdal-dev < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I would love gdal to be a projct where I can still use AI/LLM to fix > > the issues that annoy me in the same way I do elsewhere. How about > > reworking this policy change from "no AI" to "need to solve maintainer > > capacity problem". I think the "Peer review first" policy from the > > above may actually adjust it better. Just allow to put any PR into > > this mode, maybe via a tag or comment, and don't look at it until > > there are some reveiws and their results are fixed. People who have > > coded something for the project are likely using it, can test, it > > should not be annoying for them as it's not them doing the local build > > nowadays, just their llm, and they also likely will be ok to spend > > some tokens for the automated review in addition to testing. After > > there are like five of them approving without complaints, maybe it's > > time to merge. > You over-estimate the size of the GDAL reviewing community. Unless I > miss something, I'm aware of: > - 3 main "vocal" (in the sense they write comments, or explicitly > approve a PR) reviewers in the developer category: myself, Dan and > Alessandro > - Jukka with his "power user" hat commenting on functionality, > documentation, etc. > - Paul Harwood on C# issues > - and to a lesser extent a few other people (Michael Sumner, Chris > Toney, ...) who might occasionally comment on particular topics of interest > (sorry if I missed someone. definitely not intentional!) > > There has *never* been >= 5 people approving a PR. When we get at least > one explicit approval, that's already an achievement. I regularly have > to self-approve my own most ancient PRs when the queue of > pending ones grows too much. > > > > > It may also be a good idea to issue something like call for maintainers. > > Can that actually work ? Anyone is certainly welcome to review in their > own capacity, but maintainers don't grow spontaneously. On a software > large like GDAL, it is a many years process (took me 5-7 years to feel > comfortable claiming that role). And you only go into that position by > also making changes (bug fixes, enhancements, refactoring), and doing it > the hard way so that you actually *learn* something in the process about > the code base, its written and unwritten oddities and habits. Learning > requires effort. I don't buy a single second that anyone can become a > (competent) maintainer by only contributing vibe coded pull requests. > Unless you're OK with your code base becoming progressively a LLM-only > territory. > > That LLM are super convenient for creating likely/plausible code is a > fact. That this is a good thing for the long term viability of both the > code base and the community is much more arguable. > > Even > > > -- > http://www.spatialys.com > My software is free, but my time generally not. > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
