Re: RFC111 AI/LLM tool policy: proposal for a significant revision
Chris Toney via gdal-dev <[email protected]> Wed, 13 May 2026 10:45:02 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gis.gdal.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALRbqORxSOTY=GTMtcHA0JDp08pJe4oDUoFFp7BF2oQXQNq3iA@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============8692655633338241522== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001ff5ed0651b5b417" --0000000000001ff5ed0651b5b417 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I'm positive on the latest revisions (non-voting opinion). The "Rationale" text added by Howard addresses a lot of what's being discussed here. Chris On Wed, May 13, 2026, 9:47 AM Even Rouault via gdal-dev < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I would love gdal to be a projct where I can still use AI/LLM to fix > > the issues that annoy me in the same way I do elsewhere. How about > > reworking this policy change from "no AI" to "need to solve maintainer > > capacity problem". I think the "Peer review first" policy from the > > above may actually adjust it better. Just allow to put any PR into > > this mode, maybe via a tag or comment, and don't look at it until > > there are some reveiws and their results are fixed. People who have > > coded something for the project are likely using it, can test, it > > should not be annoying for them as it's not them doing the local build > > nowadays, just their llm, and they also likely will be ok to spend > > some tokens for the automated review in addition to testing. After > > there are like five of them approving without complaints, maybe it's > > time to merge. > You over-estimate the size of the GDAL reviewing community. Unless I > miss something, I'm aware of: > - 3 main "vocal" (in the sense they write comments, or explicitly > approve a PR) reviewers in the developer category: myself, Dan and > Alessandro > - Jukka with his "power user" hat commenting on functionality, > documentation, etc. > - Paul Harwood on C# issues > - and to a lesser extent a few other people (Michael Sumner, Chris > Toney, ...) who might occasionally comment on particular topics of interest > (sorry if I missed someone. definitely not intentional!) > > There has *never* been >= 5 people approving a PR. When we get at least > one explicit approval, that's already an achievement. I regularly have > to self-approve my own most ancient PRs when the queue of > pending ones grows too much. > > > > > It may also be a good idea to issue something like call for maintainers. > > Can that actually work ? Anyone is certainly welcome to review in their > own capacity, but maintainers don't grow spontaneously. On a software > large like GDAL, it is a many years process (took me 5-7 years to feel > comfortable claiming that role). And you only go into that position by > also making changes (bug fixes, enhancements, refactoring), and doing it > the hard way so that you actually *learn* something in the process about > the code base, its written and unwritten oddities and habits. Learning > requires effort. I don't buy a single second that anyone can become a > (competent) maintainer by only contributing vibe coded pull requests. > Unless you're OK with your code base becoming progressively a LLM-only > territory. > > That LLM are super convenient for creating likely/plausible code is a > fact. That this is a good thing for the long term viability of both the > code base and the community is much more arguable. > > Even > > > -- > http://www.spatialys.com > My software is free, but my time generally not. > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev > --0000000000001ff5ed0651b5b417 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto">I'm positive on the latest revisions (non-voting opin= ion).=C2=A0The "Rationale" text added by Howard addresses a lot o= f what's being discussed here.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"a= uto">Chris=C2=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_conta= iner"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, May 13, 2026, 9:47 AM E= ven Rouault via gdal-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">gd= [email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q= uote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1e= x">><br> > I would love gdal to be a projct where I can still use AI/LLM to fix <= br> > the issues that annoy me in the same way I do elsewhere. How about <br= > > reworking this policy change from "no AI" to "need to s= olve maintainer <br> > capacity problem". I think the "Peer review first" poli= cy from the <br> > above may actually adjust it better. Just allow to put any PR into <br= > > this mode, maybe via a tag or comment, and don't look at it until = <br> > there are some reveiws and their results are fixed. People who have <b= r> > coded something for the project are likely using it, can test, it <br> > should not be annoying for them as it's not them doing the local b= uild <br> > nowadays, just their llm, and they also likely will be ok to spend <br= > > some tokens for the automated review in addition to testing. After <br= > > there are like five of them approving without complaints, maybe it'= ;s <br> > time to merge.<br> You over-estimate the size of the GDAL reviewing community. Unless I <br> miss something, I'm aware of:<br> -=C2=A0 3 main "vocal"=C2=A0 (in the sense they write comments, o= r explicitly <br> approve a PR) reviewers in the developer category: myself, Dan and <br> Alessandro<br> - Jukka with his "power user" hat commenting on functionality, <b= r> documentation, etc.<br> - Paul Harwood on C# issues<br> - and to a lesser extent a few other people (Michael Sumner, Chris <br> Toney, ...) who might occasionally comment on particular topics of interest= <br> (sorry if I missed someone. definitely not intentional!)<br> <br> There has=C2=A0 *never*=C2=A0been >=3D 5 people approving a PR. When we = get at least <br> one explicit approval, that's already an achievement. I regularly have = <br> to=C2=A0self-approve my own most ancient PRs when the queue=C2=A0of <br> pending=C2=A0ones=C2=A0grows too much.<br> <br> ><br> > It may also be a good idea to issue something like call for maintainer= s.<br> <br> Can that actually work ? Anyone is certainly welcome to=C2=A0review in thei= r <br> own capacity, but maintainers don't grow spontaneously. On a software <= br> large like GDAL, it is a many years process (took me 5-7 years to feel <br> comfortable claiming that role). And you only go into that position by <br> also making changes (bug fixes, enhancements, refactoring), and doing it <b= r> the hard way so that you actually *learn* something in the process about <b= r> the code base, its written and unwritten=C2=A0oddities and habits. Learning= <br> requires effort. I don't buy a single second=C2=A0that anyone can becom= e a <br> (competent) maintainer by=C2=A0only contributing=C2=A0vibe coded pull reque= sts. <br> Unless you're OK with your code base becoming progressively=C2=A0a LLM-= only <br> territory.<br> <br> That LLM are super convenient for creating=C2=A0likely/plausible code is a = <br> fact. That this is a good thing for the long term viability=C2=A0of both th= e <br> code base and the community is much more arguable.<br> <br> Even<br> <br> <br> -- <br> <a href=3D"http://www.spatialys.com" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target= =3D"_blank">http://www.spatialys.com</a><br> My software is free, but my time generally not.<br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> gdal-dev mailing list<br> <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"norefe= rrer">[email protected]</a><br> <a href=3D"https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev" rel=3D"norefe= rrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo= /gdal-dev</a><br> </blockquote></div> --0000000000001ff5ed0651b5b417-- --===============8692655633338241522== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev --===============8692655633338241522==--