+1 to mandatory PR description field, as someone who spent time reviewing one of the aforementioned PRs without realizing it was AI-generated
On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 2:58 PM Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Jarek for starting the proposal. As I approved also in the > devlist my signal, I am +1 on it. > > As like in Spark (did not know about this, they did it in 2023!) I'm > also for adding similar to PR template. Then nobody could claim they > have not seen / read it. Not all read the contributions docs. > > On 1/6/26 20:44, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > 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. > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
