Isn't unsubscribing done by sending an email from your subscribed email
address to:
[email protected]
On 03/02/2026 15:34, Pierre-Noel Bouteville wrote:
Already done many Time
Pierre-Noël Bouteville
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 3 févr. 2026 à 16:20, Matteo Golin <[email protected]> a écrit :
Hello Pierre,
I believe you've been suggested to use the unsubscribe link on the NuttX
website already and that didn't work (correct me if I'm wrong).
At this point, I suggest you block the NuttX mailing list address from your
email client.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2026, 10:17 AM Pierre-Noel Bouteville <[email protected]>
wrote:
Some one can remove m’y e-mail from this list ?
Pierre-Noël Bouteville
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 3 févr. 2026 à 16:10, Sebastien Lorquet <[email protected]> a
écrit :
Hello,
I think NO AI in my nuttx. But I fully know that the addiction is
strong, and it cannot be verified what developers do in their corners.
So their own developer responsibility in reviewing and avoiding slop
code applies.
HOWEVER, that said:
It should be totally forbidden to loose precious maintainers time with
slop pull request.
You're very few and very busy and you should not be trolled with slop.
I think nuttx should be as rigorous as curl with respect to bogus and
low value ai pull requests and bug reports.
Sebastien
On 2/3/26 16:04, Matteo Golin wrote:
Hello,
This week in particular there has been a large number of AI-generated
pull
requests submitted to NuttX and NuttX apps. Most of these used AI to
completely generate PR descriptions and/or commit messages. In some
cases,
AI was used to generate documentation and possibly code.
The quality of these PRs are low, containing unnecessary information
that
summarized the diffs (i.e. files changed, lines inserted, etc) and
repetitive summaries. The dangerous aspect of these PRs is that the vast
majority of them contained completely generated test claims with no logs
(and in some cases, generated logs) to back them. When asked about the
test
claims, the authors stated that the PR was AI-generated and removed all
claims.
This is starting to become a trend, with a lot of recent PRs containing
the
same "files changed" section. They are difficult to review because they
don't communicate the changes clearly, have unnecessary information and
often contain fabricated information. Some of them contain multiple
commits
which should be reviewed split across multiple PRs and change summaries
which omit information about commits. PR authors are also refusing to
provide logs or adequate explanations in some cases.
I think it's time for the community to discuss a stance on AI generated
submissions. I don't think it's enforceable to prevent contributors from
using AI in their PRs, and some contributors may be using it to assist
them
in a moderate way (I personally do not think any AI use is good, but I
know
this is not realistic for many people). I think that PRs which contain
AI
generated descriptions or code should be blocked by a change request
until
they are modified to improve the code quality or description quality.
This
isn't really a change, that's what we do with poor code submissions.
However, I think contributors should be warned to stop using AI output
if
they are not verifying it, and there should be a stance from NuttX in
the
contributing guidelines regarding AI usage/guidelines. If it becomes a
pattern for certain contributors I think their PRs should start getting
closed.
What does the community think?
Matteo
Here are some of these AI PRs:
https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3381
https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3397
https://github.com/apache/ <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18223
nuttx
<https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18223>/pull/18223
<https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18223>
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18266
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18221
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18219
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18217
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18216
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18205
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18207
