Question raised in a PR - adding here for better visibility: Apache Spark has a PR template item about the usage of AI added in apache/spark#42469
Shall we also add a note into https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md ? Here is the content of PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE of Spark - we can likely also make it optional or mandatory checkbox in the PR ? WDYT? There is a bit of friction if we make it a mandatory field to fill, but maybe it's worth it ? J. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? <!-- If generative AI tooling has been used in the process of authoring this patch, please include the phrase: 'Generated-by: ' followed by the name of the tool and its version. If no, write 'No'. Please refer to the [ASF Generative Tooling Guidance]( https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html) for details. On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 1:24 PM Aritra Basu <[email protected]> wrote: > Overall I'm for this, was about to add some comments but unable to do it , > getting some errors. Will add once I get home. Mostly in ways of adding > some more lines to hammer home the cost of these spammy prs and updating > some sentence structures. But fully onboard with the spirit of it. > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2026, 3:42 pm Jarek Potiuk, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello here. > > > > We have recently - like almost everyone else - started to receive some > > Gen-AI generated PRs that are creating some distractions - recently we > > closed 25(!) PRS of a contributor that was clearly doing PRs without > > understanding what their AI proposed, without review or even a touch of > > understanding what they do: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues?q=is%3Apr%20author%3A%22Arunodoy18%22 > > > > > > Some of those PRs looked "plausible" but either tests were completely not > > working or the changes themselves were inconsequential. > > > > We discussed it in private@ and I think it's a good idea to add clear > > guidelines on how to use Gen AI for contributions, point out bad > behaviours > > and make it very clear that similar usages of Gen AI will not be > accepted. > > We should be clear about expectations we have towards such PRs - while at > > the same acknowledging that it's perfectly fine to use AI as long as our > > expectations are met. > > > > I also added one thing that is important - it seems that people do such > PRs > > partially because they want to boost their reputation, but as the example > > of the contributor that had 25 closed PRs with a maintainer saying "you > are > > doing it wrong, stop" - is ALL BUT boosting reputation - it's a clear > path > > to being a) ignored by everyone b) reported to Github as scammer and > > getting your account shutdown. > > > > I proposed a PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/60158 and I > welcome > > any comments - this might be a bit sensitive thing, so it's worth to have > > more people comment and make sure the bias of single person and cultural > > differences will not make it seem too harsh or somewhat drive out the > valid > > contributions. > > > > I do not think we need some specific voting on it, but once we give it a > > few days of discussions and give people a chance to look at it - i will > > merge it and send a LAZY CONSENSUS here - because I think we record it > as a > > community approach that we all consent with. > > > > Particularly *Arunodoy18* - if you are watching it and have something to > > add in the defense of your PRs - maybe we misunderstood the behaviour and > > intentions of yours and maybe you have some other perspective - this is > the > > right time for you to step up and explain. > > > > J. > > >
