flyingImer commented on code in PR #3948: URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3948#discussion_r2956858781
########## CONTRIBUTING.md: ########## @@ -119,6 +119,16 @@ Tips: * Keep in mind that the Git commit subject and message is going to be read by other people, potentially even after years. The Git commit subject and message will appear "as is" in release notes. * Make sure the subject and message are properly formatted and contains a concise description of the changes in way that someone who has no prior knowledge can understand the rationale of the change and the change itself. Remove information that's of no use for someone reading the Git commit log, for example single intermediate commit messages like `formatting` or `fix test`. +#### Guidelines for AI-assisted Contributions + +Contributors may use a variety of tools when preparing changes to Polaris, including AI systems (e.g., large language models or code assistants). Contributors using such systems are expected to adhere to the following principles: + +* Regardless of how a change is produced, the individual submitting the pull request is considered the author of the contribution and is fully responsible for it. +* The pull request author **must understand the implementation end-to-end** and be able to **explain and justify the design and code** during review. +* Tools, including AI systems, **are not** considered contributors. **Responsibility and authorship remain with the human** submitting the change. +* Contributors are encouraged to **disclose** significant AI assistance in the pull request description for transparency. Review Comment: @dimas-b @jbonofre I agree the header/copyright question is important! My concern is that this feels bigger than a Polaris-local CONTRIBUTING.md rule. My bias is that Polaris should not try to define project-specific copyright/header treatment for AI-generated code ahead of clearer ASF-level guidance or discussion there. For this PR, I’d prefer to keep the scope narrow: the submitting human remains accountable, contributors must understand and stand behind the change, and submissions should follow the ASF generative tooling guidance. If we still feel project-specific header/provenance rules are needed after that, I think that should be handled as a separate follow-up discussion. I'm inclined to merge as is and bring the discussion to ASF level. WDYT? -- 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]
