saadtajwar commented on code in PR #24510: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/24510#discussion_r3821636810
########## docs/source/contributor-guide/index.md: ########## @@ -194,6 +201,12 @@ DataFusion has the following policy for AI-assisted PRs: - The PR author should **understand the core ideas** behind the implementation **end-to-end**, and be able to justify the design and code during review. - **Calls out unknowns and assumptions**. It's okay to not fully understand some bits of AI generated code. You should comment on these cases and point them out to reviewers so that they can use their knowledge of the codebase to clear up any concerns. For example, you might comment "calling this function here seems to work but I'm not familiar with how it works internally, I wonder if there's a race condition if it is called concurrently". +If we see multiple PRs being created in a short amount of time, especially from +a first time contributor, and we suspect AI involvement, we are at liberty to Review Comment: I know this is just a draft currently, but just wanted to share my thoughts! I think something like "we believe them to be completely created via AI" as opposed to "we suspect AI involvement" could be more apt wording? Given that DF is open to contributions where the author is using AI for assistance, whereas (to my understanding) what we're looking to temper is "AI slop" (AI output that hasn't been checked, is being spammed, has no human involvement, etc) Again, just my 2 cents here, feel free to push back! -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
