Thanks Aleks, I think this is the ASF legal guidance at the moment - https://apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
On 2026/07/08 21:25:03 Francisco Guerrero wrote: > No concerns from my end as long as the patches are > small and self-contained. I can also volunteer to review > some of the patches. > > Best, > - Francisco > > On 2026/07/08 21:22:43 Patrick McFadin wrote: > > And sidebar. I've been looking at RoaringBitmap, and besides a really > > awesome name, pretty impressive stuff there. > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 1:13 PM Alex Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Good point! > > > > > > From what I understand even though there’s “loop” in the name it has > > > preceded a current wave of agentic looping. In other words, they use same > > > methodology one would when searching for performance improvements: > > > measurement profiling hypothesis etc., and then go through multiple > > > evaluation stages. > > > > > > Contributions are not coming with any conditions: agent just posts a > > > patch, and all associated documentation and hypothesis is freely > > > available. > > > > > > From what I understand, mentioning that X has found an issue in an open > > > source project is ok (similar to how a researcher can claim a found > > > issue); > > > that of course can’t imply that Cassandra logo can be used in vendor > > > materials. Thank you for pointing that out. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2026, at 9:55 PM, C. Scott Andreas wrote: > > > > > > I’m supportive and not aware of any blockers. > > > > > > One consideration on approach: David has done some experimentation with > > > loop-based optimization. His work demonstrates a lot of promise, but with > > > a > > > caveat that as the loop approaches optimality the complexity of the patch > > > can increase at a rate that outpaces its value. I’d be curious how this > > > approach handles that tradeoff. > > > > > > And one for the project: if use of the software creates any obligation for > > > Apache Cassandra such as referenceability in the vendor’s press materials > > > etc., that would need to be discussed and voted on by the PMC prior to > > > creating any such obligation. > > > > > > — > > > Mobile > > > > > > On Jul 8, 2026, at 5:59 AM, Alex Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > A friend of mine is building Perfloop [1]; the way they describe it, > > > "closed loop performance engineering". They already have several upstream > > > OSS merges, including two in parquet-go [2] and one in > > > RoaringBitmap/roaring [3], all benchmark-verified. > > > > > > I was curious if they can find anything in Cassandra, so asked them to try > > > it against our repo, and they've found a bunch of performance > > > improvements, > > > many of which seem to be quite easy to review and verify. All of them come > > > with a finding, benchmark, a patch, and verification of an improvement, > > > which is pretty useful for a reviewer. > > > > > > I've looked over the issues, and will be reviewing and committing some of > > > them. Is there anything that prevents us from committing the patches that > > > were fully LLM-authored, assuming contents are solid? > > > > > > --Alex > > > > > > [1] https://perfloop.ai/ > > > [2] https://github.com/parquet-go/parquet-go/pull/550 > > > [3] https://github.com/RoaringBitmap/roaring/pull/532 > > > > > > > > > > > >
