thisisnic commented on PR #50375: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/50375#issuecomment-4955998308
> Can we instead suggest that PRs should never be opened automatically by AI? Instead have the human review changes locally and write a proper description themselves? I think "never" might be a bit strong here, e.g. I find it useful to have Claude open PRs for me (though only when I tell it) when I understand the change but would find it hard to describe in words or do a worse job of it; example: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/50488 How about we adopt [the convention that Airflow uses](https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/AGENTS.md): > Anything an agent drafts that ends up posted to GitHub on the user's account — PR / issue comments, PR-level reviews, line-level review comments, discussion replies — must end with an attribution footer. The footer is required whether or not a human reviewed the draft first; what changes between the two cases is the wording. This would allows us to differentiate between things which have been checked/reviewed by humans or not. -- 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]
