Hi everyone, I would like to clarify my position regarding my recent PR (#9414).
First, I acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the use of LLM content in contributions. My intention was simply to address a technical gap - the lack of support for WebLogic 14c - which I originally reported as an issue in 2023 (#6109) I was forced to migrate my development environment to IntelliJ, simply because the current projects I am working on require WebLogic 14c, and NetBeans did not provide the necessary support. As a long-time NetBeans user who values this project, I decided to contribute the fix back to NetBeans. I used LLM to the subsequent revisions requested by the reviewers. I explicitly included the "Co-Authored-By" tag in the commit message because I believe in full transparency regarding the origin of the code. While I understand that the ASF is currently discussing policies regarding AI-generated contributions, my goal was purely to provide a solution for a missing feature that impacts many enterprise users. Given the ongoing discussion and the uncertainty regarding policy, I have decided to close the PR for now. However, the solution will remain available in my repository for those who need it: https://github.com/ganigurgah/netbeans/tree/weblogic-14c-support. I respect the project's governance and I wish the community reaching a clear consensus on this topic. Best regards, Gani Neil C Smith <[email protected]>, 17 Haz 2026 Çar, 12:21 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 at 22:25, Michael Bien <[email protected]> wrote: > > IMO: whether a change comes from an IDE/refactoring tool, a LLM, or a > specially trained cat doesn't matter much to me as long a human understood > the change, checked it for correctness and is happy about it. > > ... and it doesn't infringe on anything. I don't know how we can > fulfill the ASF guidelines without knowing now, or recording for the > future, how a contribution was generated. > > > That is also why I like the "Assisted-by" tag as used by the linux > kernel, since I think it is more descriptive than "Generated-by" and > wouldn't overload "Co-authored-by:" further etc. > > Yes, agreed. > > > > I think doing something like 1), with "Assisted-by" in both the commit > > > message and PR description, might be desirable. > > > > Yeah it would be good to mention it there too. > > > > also: I see very few reasons why someone would need generate the PR > text, given that it is read by humans you likely interacted with before. > 1-3 sentences or bullet points in your own words should carry more value > than a page which reads like a product commercial ;). > > I just wanted to emphasise the importance of the "Assisted-by" line > being included in the description too. I was joking about not > allowing LLM assisted contributions. However, I can see some merit to > something like "You may use LLM assistance to make contributions, but > please write the description of the pull request in your own words - > we'd like to know you understand the changes being made!" > > > > It's interesting the > > > ASF guidelines mention contributors but not committers. Certainly > > > committers need to be aware of the ASF guidelines when producing their > > > own contributions. But committers merging third-party pull requests, > > > particularly from people without an ICLA, may need to know this > > > information to be clear about the provenance, meet the guidelines and > > > fulfill their own ICLA requirements? > > > > yes that is what I wondered too (first paragraph of the original mail). > > True. I'm just trying to emphasise the principle that "if you merge > it, you're signing off on it" has to cover this area too. > > Best wishes, > > Neil > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > > -- Gani GÜRGAH Yazılım Geliştirme Uzmanı
