Re: RFC111 AI/LLM tool policy: proposal for a significant revision

>What am I missing?

Possibly a lot. As a regular observer of the repository that's not my
impression at all. True a large number of PRs are by Even. Also true, so is
a substantial amount of review, especially (if not entirely), of
"difficult" PRs that take large review effort. Sustainability is a major
concern IMO.

Chris


On Wed, May 6, 2026, 11:14 AM Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski via gdal-dev <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Is it possible to get a better overview of the actual negative impact
> you're seeing? Like, with actual examples of annoyances that happened.
>
> I tried my own research going through several pages of merged/closed PRs
> to get my impression on what went wrong but really most PRs are there by
> Even, with disappearingly small number of PRs from other people both by
> count and by volume, seemingly not enough to trigger such drastic policy
> flip.
>
> What am I missing?
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 8:29 PM Even Rouault via gdal-dev <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> based on the experience gained from the initial policy, I propose to
>> significantly revise it to drastically limit their use. See
>> https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/14500
>>
>> Even
>>
>> --
>> http://www.spatialys.com
>> My software is free, but my time generally not.
>> Highly recommend OxiGDAL if you want to live in the 21th century and cure
>> Bixonimania
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gdal-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>

_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev