I've gone over the the Rust policy. I am in support of the Rust version with the tweaks proposed by Caleb.
Best, - Francisco On 2026/09/28 18:45:03 Aleksey Yeshchenko via dev wrote: > Some last minute amends to the suggested policy's TL;DR, with Caleb's > approval: > > - It’s fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, > suggest, review. > - LLMs work best when used as a tool to write better, not faster. > > "But not to create." bit is covered in detail by the full policy and is > impossible to summarise well in two words. > > With other changes as outlined by Caleb in the quoted email, I would be happy > to support this fine-tuned version of Rust's policy. > > -- > AY > > > On 28 Sep 2026, at 19:27, Caleb Rackliffe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > To clarify, I would remove the "Experimental" tag and make that section > > apply to all contributors. (In other words, encourage attribution, quality, > > and human decision-making for all of us.) > > > > The spirit of this is really a one line change to the Rust policy: > > > > > It’s fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, > > > check, suggest, review. But not to create. > > > > ...becomes... > > > > It’s fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, > > suggest, review. But not to decide. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 12:54 PM Caleb Rackliffe <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> I finally read the Rust and Lucene policy docs in more detail... > >> > >> https://flagged.apple.com:443/proxy?t2=Dx1j3o8bN8&o=aHR0cHM6Ly9mb3JnZS5ydXN0LWxhbmcub3JnL3BvbGljaWVzL2xsbS11c2FnZS5odG1s&emid=10aadc4f-b52a-4662-9281-ce00061a230c&c=11 > >> > >> <https://flagged.apple.com/proxy?t2=Dx1j3o8bN8&o=aHR0cHM6Ly9mb3JnZS5ydXN0LWxhbmcub3JnL3BvbGljaWVzL2xsbS11c2FnZS5odG1s&emid=10aadc4f-b52a-4662-9281-ce00061a230c&c=11> > >> https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/main/AI_POLICY.md > >> > >> I think I agree with a lot of what's written in both, and they overlap > >> quite a lot, especially around communication (docs, issue comments, etc.) > >> that should be primarily human-to-human. Everything useful in the Lucene > >> policy is already included in the Rust policy though. If we could take the > >> Rust policy, generalize away the Rust-specific things, simplify it, and > >> remove the "Experimental" tag (and probably the "non-critical" qualifier) > >> on the "LLM-created code changes intended of review" section, I think > >> that's something a large majority of us would be able to live with. > >> > >> If we can get this right, it's simply clarifying the set of things > >> contributors (including existing committers) can do to have the best > >> chance at getting engagement from reviewers. > >> > >> I don't know how much appetite there is out there for a formal draft of > >> this, and we already have 3-4 proposals, but I could attempt it if that > >> would be useful... > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 10:50 AM Štefan Miklošovič <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> A clarification from my side, I asked "what is wrong with this" in my > >>> latest email: > >>> > >>> "For these reasons, it should be expected that the person producing > >>> the patch has already demonstrated their expertise and commitment by > >>> producing and maintaining similar patches without the use of AI" > >>> > >>> It is "almost fine", the part of "similar patches without the use of > >>> AI" should not be there. It should stop before that. > >>> > >>> Otherwise this is going to exclude people who have a decade of > >>> experience with Cassandra and contributed countless patches of various > >>> size and complexity while according to that exact wording, they would > >>> not be eligible to contribute an AI patch. That is silly. I think this > >>> is wrong. It does not matter how it was produced. What is important is > >>> established trust and if a patch is correct. What does even the size > >>> of a patch have in common with that? Expertise and commitment! Not > >>> "the series of patches this committer ever produced was not complex > >>> enough so we can't take that code in". > >>> > >>> Also, who is exactly going to measure that anyway? What are the > >>> _objective_ criteria who qualifies? Somebody might come and say "while > >>> based on my criteria, (because I do not like this person), I do not > >>> think that the patches of this person qualify, because ...". We need > >>> hard data on whether it can be merged or not, performance improvement, > >>> stability ... > >>> > >>> I think this particular wording would need to be refined further. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 4:34 PM Štefan Miklošovič > >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Right ... for that reason I don't think we should restrict anybody to > >>> > create a PR or anything like that, putting some artificial constraints > >>> > people will eventually bypass anyway. We don't have that under > >>> > control. What we have under control is the review part of that. A > >>> > patch not merged will not be released. The review itself is the > >>> > "gate". > >>> > > >>> > If a PR, even done by AI, is up to standards, has everything it should > >>> > have and it is technically correct, then I can not reject to merge > >>> > that only on the basis it was AI-generated. A patch like a patch. The > >>> > code speaks. The ultimate gate is if a patch is correct or not, not > >>> > how it was produced. > >>> > > >>> > Do I gravitate with my trust more towards established members of the > >>> > community? Definitely. The trust is earned over the years. Implicitly, > >>> > I am trusting a newcomer less. Sorry but not sorry. If somebody calls > >>> > this "gating", I don't think they see the nuances enough. Yeah, call > >>> > it a gate if you want ... > >>> > > >>> > That is why I agree with Benedict here, he said: > >>> > > >>> > "For these reasons, it should be expected that the person producing > >>> > the patch has already demonstrated their expertise and commitment by > >>> > producing and maintaining similar patches without the use of AI". > >>> > > >>> > What is wrong about this? > >>> > > >>> > Look at this contributor (1). This is an excellent example. 10 patches > >>> > in fast cadence three weeks ago. We never heard about this person > >>> > before nor after the patches were created. What about hitting a ML > >>> > saying "hey, guys, I have a set of patches which scratch my itches, > >>> > can you take a look, please?". I don't know ... just be a bit ... > >>> > human about all of this? The maintainers are people too. I am not > >>> > obliged to take in and cooperate with whoever comes by, dumps their > >>> > stuff and then they ... wait. Well, so wait. See where you got three > >>> > weeks after? Nowhere. > >>> > > >>> > Caleb put it nicely, we are "only" humans. > >>> > > >>> > (1) > >>> > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pulls?q=is%3Apr+state%3Aopen+author%3Acheeeee > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 2:51 PM Shailaja Koppu via dev > >>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > Hi Stefan, > >>> > > > >>> > > From personal side, I completely agree with you. I am giving > >>> > > potential options only to address concerns like - new contributors > >>> > > overwhelming the community with AI generated PRs just to show as > >>> > > add-on in their profile and vanish after that, or purely AI opened > >>> > > PRs without developer review or understanding. But the later can > >>> > > happen with anyone including committers due to workload/deadlines or > >>> > > misled by AI etc. Also, someone can copy a AI generated patch line by > >>> > > line skipping comments, which looks like a handwritten code. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks, > >>> > > Shailaja > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Sep 28, 2026, at 12:23 PM, Štefan Miklošovič > >>> > > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > >> - Only Cassandra committers may submit AI-assisted PRs. This would > >>> > > >> mean new contributors first write and understand code without AI > >>> > > >> before becoming committers; or > >>> > > >> - Contributors may submit AI-assisted changes in a > >>> > > >> component/subcomponent only after they have submitted at least one > >>> > > >> non-AI PR in that component/subcomponent. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I am not sure if I am missing something but can you all explain in > >>> > > > simple terms how is this actually enforceable in practice? > >>> > > > > >>> > > > "Only Cassandra committers may submit AI-assisted PRs" - there is no > >>> > > > restriction who can create a PR and how. It is not like we see that > >>> > > > a > >>> > > > PR is created with heavy AI usage, then we check if a contributor > >>> > > > is a > >>> > > > committer and when they are not we comment on that PR saying - "hold > >>> > > > your horses mate, we checked the list and you are not a committer, > >>> > > > sorry, we have to close this". > >>> > > > > >>> > > > If a PR is crafted "carefuly" then it might look like a completely > >>> > > > legitimate piece of work while it is still 100% prompted and the > >>> > > > author does not have a clue what they did. I mean ... how do you > >>> > > > make > >>> > > > the difference between what is "real" and what is AI-driven 100%? I > >>> > > > think that even if we "guessed" which one is which, the possibility > >>> > > > to > >>> > > > see this is being progressively erased as this tech is evolving and > >>> > > > we > >>> > > > will eventually not have a clue. > >>> > > > >
