Thank you sir for your response, Currently I am trying my best. Reading codebase understand logic, what the function exactly do here and also I am able or not to explain the changes in PR.
Thank you again On Sun, 1 Feb 2026, 16:11 Jason Moore, <[email protected]> wrote: > HI Vedant, > > > What are the main signals you look for that indicate a PR is based on > genuine understanding rather than automated generation? > > My suggestion to you, as a new contributor, is to not use AI. Then your > contribution is by default genuine because you created it using your own > brain and effort. > > If you are trying to figure out how to make your not-genuine PR look > genuine via signals, then you are missing the point. > > Jason > moorepants.info > +01 530-601-9791 > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 10:24 AM Vedant Dusane <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> It was really helpful to understand the maintainer perspective and the >> review burden caused by low-quality or undisclosed AI-generated PRs. >> >> As a newer contributor trying to learn SymPy through small, focused >> changes (mainly typing and cleanup), this clarified expectations a lot. I >> want to make sure my future PRs show real understanding and are worth >> reviewer time. >> >> This discussion has helped me understand the review burden much better. >> I was wondering if ‘lightweight’ approaches such as better AI disclosure >> or short reasoning notes in PRs could help reduce reviewer time without >> adding much overhead.” >> >> What are the main signals you look for that indicate a PR is based on >> genuine understanding rather than automated generation? >> >> On Saturday, 31 January 2026 at 23:46:38 UTC-8 [email protected] wrote: >> >>> GSoC has played a very significant role in the history of SymPy. I don't >>> think that can be understated. We have always gotten lots of poor quality >>> contributions and interactions during the annual application phase. AI slop >>> causes a rise in this. >>> >>> We should have some careful deliberation before deciding to not >>> participate in GSoC in the future. My opinion is that GSoC results reflect >>> proportionally the time/quality of mentorship in most cases. >>> >>> Jason >>> moorepants.info >>> +01 530-601-9791 <(530)%20601-9791> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 8:28 AM <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Would a ‚time based closure’ not be close to no 2, weakened to >>>> something like *likely not to be merged*? >>>> >>>> If a PR was really excellent, would it not be looked at by somebody in >>>> good time? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Oscar made an additional point about GSoC >>>> >>>> I am convinced that the flood of low level (Oscar’s judgement. I do not >>>> have the skills to judge them) PRs is due to the fact that the submitters >>>> want to participate in GSoC. >>>> >>>> I cannot judge the pros of sympy being “in” GSoC vs. the drawback of >>>> the flood of PRs, but surely the experts must have opinions based on their >>>> experience on this question. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of >>>> *Jason >>>> Moore >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 1, 2026 7:53 AM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* Re: [sympy] AI generated pull requests >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In the past we've used the "closed" designation on a PR to mean: 1) >>>> this is merged into master and 2) this will definitely not be merged into >>>> master. If we close PRs based on inactivity time, then we have PRs labeled >>>> "closed" which are neither 1 or 2, they still have the state "could be or >>>> might be merged to master or might be rejected" but now we've labeled them >>>> with "closed" which would seemingly imply 1 or 2. So it seems to me if you >>>> close based on inactivity time, then the meaning of "open" or "closed" PR >>>> no longer has distinct meanings. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>>> moorepants.info >>>> +01 530-601-9791 <(530)%20601-9791> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 3:53 AM '[email protected]' via sympy < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I like Oscar's idea of a pre-warning that the PR will be closed in a >>>> month with suggestions about things to check if the author wishes to pursue >>>> getting the PR merged. I can understand from the maintainers' view not >>>> wanting the time frame for automatic closure of to be too long. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I only have short bursts of time I can spend contributing to the >>>> various open-source projects I am involved in, so am likely to have PRs >>>> that would not be completed in a two month time frame. However, from my >>>> perspective that could easily be worked around by opening a new PR >>>> referring back to the old one, when I am able to cycle back around to work >>>> on it again. Thus, I think that having PRs that I am continuing to work on >>>> closed after 2 months of inactivity would be fine. It is unlikely to deter >>>> me from continuing on projects I am interested in over the long term. I do >>>> think the shorter time frame will clean up the repo and may be effective at >>>> discouraging people who are not truly serious about working on sympy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I strongly suggest that automatic closure of PRs after a period of >>>> inactivity be implemented. From my perspective as a sometime contributor, I >>>> am not sure that the time frame matters as much as the fact that it should >>>> happen. The time frame should be chosen to work best for the development >>>> cycle the core maintainers can manage. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, January 31, 2026 at 5:10:44 PM UTC-6 Oscar wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 at 22:37, '[email protected]' via sympy >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > As a minor contributor, I strongly agree with the idea that PRs >>>> without activity for some period of time should be automatically closed. I >>>> am not sure the core maintainers and reviewers need to be notified. The >>>> originator of the PR should be notified with a message explaining that it >>>> was closed because of inactivity over the last XX period of time. They >>>> should be encouraged to review the PR carefully and decide if they have the >>>> time and interest in adjusting the code so that it meets all requirements >>>> for merging and address any concerns raised in the PR before it was closed. >>>> If so, they should open a new pull request with code updated to pass all >>>> tests when built with the current development branch and refer to the old >>>> PR in case reviewers want to look at the history. >>>> > >>>> > I would be in favor of the period of inactivity being in the range of >>>> 6 months to a year. This would potentially close both pull requests I >>>> currently have open (https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/28258 and >>>> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/24574). This seems reasonable, >>>> because although I would be interested in pursuing both of them, the >>>> reality is that my primary job is as a Chemistry Professor/Computational >>>> Quantum Chemist and I am unlikely to have much time for work on either of >>>> these until at least the end of the current semester. I do not object to >>>> opening a new PR or reopening the old one when I get back to being able to >>>> consider the code. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how this would work in practice but for example if >>>> someone else closes your PR then I think it isn't possible for you to >>>> reopen it unless you are a member (some who can merge PRs). You could >>>> of course comment that you would like to reopen and then a member >>>> could do it and we could make sure that the bot that closes the PR >>>> would leave a message explaining that. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure about 6 months. I think that basically after 1 month of >>>> inactivity the PR is usually forgotten but the amount of time passed >>>> is still small enough that the PR could easily be revived if people >>>> were reminded and actually wanted to continue with it. If all >>>> maintainers simply happened to overlook a PR then 1 month is probably >>>> a good amount of time for there to be some kind of notification so >>>> perhaps a bot could comment then that it has been inactive for 1 month >>>> and then if no one does anything then at the 2 month mark it can be >>>> closed. >>>> >>>> It would probably be helpful for some people if the 1 month bot >>>> message explains some common reasons to the author like "if CI checks >>>> have failed and there are red crosses everywhere then that might >>>> explain why no one has reviewed your PR". This is something that is >>>> more common right now in the AI age that someone has opened a PR with >>>> broken code and then all of the checks have failed but it almost seems >>>> like the author has not seen that all the tests have failed. I would >>>> not generally bother commenting to say something like "as you can see >>>> all the tests have failed" but perhaps after 1 month it might be good >>>> to point that out to the author. >>>> >>>> If we wait longer than 2 months then what are we actually waiting for? >>>> No one is actually going to go back more than 2 months looking for PRs >>>> to review. If anyone wants to revive it further in the future then it >>>> can just be reopened but if no one expresses any positive interest in >>>> doing that then what benefit do we get from keeping a 2 month old PR >>>> in the "open" state rather than the "closed" state? The closed PRs are >>>> still there with all their code and message for everyone to see. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Oscar >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "sympy" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To view this discussion visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/e5ae466e-1cf1-40db-bfdc-5a8ba525ae5bn%40googlegroups.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/e5ae466e-1cf1-40db-bfdc-5a8ba525ae5bn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "sympy" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To view this discussion visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAP7f1AhcGTF_wTD96CyUFk3uPRpE3d_kxWm3-sW_5dLe20AXVg%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAP7f1AhcGTF_wTD96CyUFk3uPRpE3d_kxWm3-sW_5dLe20AXVg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "sympy" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> >>> To view this discussion visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/050001dc934c%24551688d0%24ff439a70%24%40gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/050001dc934c%24551688d0%24ff439a70%24%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "sympy" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/6ff6b01d-c1c6-4287-898c-1b8979eb98f5n%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/6ff6b01d-c1c6-4287-898c-1b8979eb98f5n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAP7f1Ai%2BL%2BksWOf47E%2Bpt3cBpmkxkQnAh4RQEyCQgazgprAd6w%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAP7f1Ai%2BL%2BksWOf47E%2Bpt3cBpmkxkQnAh4RQEyCQgazgprAd6w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHWzp3RNRnV8Tz-mKJQPvBTjUTSJ2ebfYwmbA6wVKBbd66vZsg%40mail.gmail.com.
