Annoying to me too when I look at it in the email preview. Might take a stab at it if it bothers me a lot.
Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 2:22 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
