BTW. If someone has other ideas how to improve it - everyone's PRs are welcome). I imagine I was not the only one annoyed by the big header after all.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 9:49 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > I created a PR where I slightly modified the template - I found it > annoying to have that big of a header and I think visible separation > with horizontal line between the commit message and the question is quite a > bit less confusing. > > PR here https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/60531 > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 6:49 PM Buğra Öztürk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I like it. I already saw it in a PR too :) Expecting from user to state AI >> information would be really helpful. It generally visible but hard to >> understand which parts. >> >> Bugra Ozturk >> >> On Fri, 9 Jan 2026, 15:35 Jarek Potiuk, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Merged. >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 7:09 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Go for it, I read through your explanations in my comments and I am >> > > convinced about it. We can always reiterate to make it better in the >> > future >> > > after observing how this one spans out. >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks & Regards, >> > > Amogh Desai >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 8:33 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Thanks Amogh also Nicolas for the discussion and comments - I >> responded >> > > to >> > > > your questions and did some adjustments, that hopefully might be >> close >> > to >> > > > consensus. >> > > > >> > > > Everyone - feel free to still comment, I am watching and trying to >> > > respond >> > > > and explain or find ways to address them. I already got plenty of >> > > > approvals, so I plan to merge it tomorrow and send "LAZY CONSENSUS" >> on >> > > the >> > > > merged version. We can always change it later/revert if the consensu >> > will >> > > > not be reached, but from the comments I gather that we all share the >> > same >> > > > sentiment. >> > > > Looking at many recent PRs - that it is badly needed as apparently >> some >> > > > contributors have very little idea what expectations we have and >> that >> > > > submitting AI generated PR without reviewing it is very bad - for us >> > and >> > > > for them. This will hopefully help to educate them. >> > > > >> > > > J, >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 6:00 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I am +1 on this spirit as well and am particularly impressed with >> how >> > > > spark >> > > > > did it >> > > > > earlier in the cycle. >> > > > > >> > > > > Reviewed the PR template and have a few improvement suggestions >> over >> > > > > there. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks & Regards, >> > > > > Amogh Desai >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 4:19 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > I experimented a bit with the PR template - and I came up with >> this >> > > > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/60158#issuecomment-3718296162 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Unfortunately we cannot use the .yml format as we do for issues >> and >> > > we >> > > > > > cannot make any fields "mandatory" here. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I think it's prominent enough and if someone does not check it >> but >> > > uses >> > > > > AI >> > > > > > we can easily call-out on it. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Any comments and suggestions are welcome in the PR of mine. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > J. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 12:54 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis < >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I like it in concept. To reiterate, it isn't the use of the >> > > > > generative >> > > > > > > tool, it's the dependence on it that is the issue. I think we >> > can >> > > > add >> > > > > > > checkboxes and required fields all we want, but people never >> read >> > > > them. >> > > > > > > The best we do is add it so we can point to it later, I guess. >> > > > Thanks >> > > > > > for >> > > > > > > writing that up, Jarek. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > - ferruzzi >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > ________________________________ >> > > > > > > From: Zach Gottesman via dev <[email protected]> >> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 12:53 PM >> > > > > > > To: [email protected] >> > > > > > > Cc: Zach Gottesman >> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [EXT] [PROPOSAL] Gen-AI guidelines in contrib >> docs >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the >> organization. >> > Do >> > > > not >> > > > > > > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the >> sender >> > > and >> > > > > > know >> > > > > > > the content is safe. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un >> expéditeur >> > > > > externe. >> > > > > > > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si >> vous >> > > ne >> > > > > > pouvez >> > > > > > > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas >> > > > certain >> > > > > > que >> > > > > > > le contenu ne présente aucun risque. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > +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] >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
