You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@netbeans.apache.org by Michael Bien <mb...@gmail.com> on 2026/06/12 22:12:46 UTC
[DISCUSS] Guidelines regarding LLM assisted contributions
Hello!
the ASF provides guidance at [0]. The page is little vague unfortunately. I am also not completely sure how point 3 can be asserted during review without requiring disclosure (tagging with "Generated-by:" is only recommended, not required).
I am wondering if we should update the PR template [2] to include a bullet point about LLM use:
1) should we require to disclose LLM assistance, in that case I would suggest to adopt (or get inspired by) the linux kernel coding assistance rules [1] since those are very concise and simple while being compatible with the ASF guidance page as far as I see.
It would essentially require to tag commits with "Assisted-by:" if applicable, everything else remains unchanged. See [2] for our current PR template.
2) remove LLM advertisement fields from commit headers/msgs and only allow humans as authors/co-authors no matter how the commit was created. (exception: trivial automation like dependabot)
3) something else? e.g do nothing and continue merging
opinion:
Although 2) would be tempting, 1) aligns more with the ASF recommendations. I do also think that it can be useful during review to know if LLMs helped to produce a commit. (Its sometimes easy to spot, but it would remove having to guess).
best regards,
-mbien
[0] https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
[1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html
[2] https://github.com/apache/netbeans/blob/30/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Guidelines regarding LLM assisted contributions
Posted by Matthias Bläsing <mb...@doppel-helix.eu>.
Hi,
Am Freitag, dem 19.06.2026 um 07:33 +0200 schrieb Michael Bien:
> hoped for more participation from the PMC (but might be the nice weather)
>
> PR reflecting the discussion: https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/9451
>
> -mbien
thanks for adding this. The texts make sense and communicate the right
things without sounding too demanding.
I added my approval to the PR to document this there too.
Greetings
Matthias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Guidelines regarding LLM assisted contributions
Posted by Michael Bien <mb...@gmail.com>.
hoped for more participation from the PMC (but might be the nice weather)
PR reflecting the discussion: https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/9451
-mbien
On 6/17/26 11:19, Neil C Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 at 22:25, Michael Bien <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IMO: whether a change comes from an IDE/refactoring tool, a LLM, or a specially trained cat doesn't matter much to me as long a human understood the change, checked it for correctness and is happy about it.
> ... and it doesn't infringe on anything. I don't know how we can
> fulfill the ASF guidelines without knowing now, or recording for the
> future, how a contribution was generated.
>
>> That is also why I like the "Assisted-by" tag as used by the linux kernel, since I think it is more descriptive than "Generated-by" and wouldn't overload "Co-authored-by:" further etc.
> Yes, agreed.
>
>>> I think doing something like 1), with "Assisted-by" in both the commit
>>> message and PR description, might be desirable.
>> Yeah it would be good to mention it there too.
>>
>> also: I see very few reasons why someone would need generate the PR text, given that it is read by humans you likely interacted with before. 1-3 sentences or bullet points in your own words should carry more value than a page which reads like a product commercial ;).
> I just wanted to emphasise the importance of the "Assisted-by" line
> being included in the description too. I was joking about not
> allowing LLM assisted contributions. However, I can see some merit to
> something like "You may use LLM assistance to make contributions, but
> please write the description of the pull request in your own words -
> we'd like to know you understand the changes being made!"
>
>>> It's interesting the
>>> ASF guidelines mention contributors but not committers. Certainly
>>> committers need to be aware of the ASF guidelines when producing their
>>> own contributions. But committers merging third-party pull requests,
>>> particularly from people without an ICLA, may need to know this
>>> information to be clear about the provenance, meet the guidelines and
>>> fulfill their own ICLA requirements?
>> yes that is what I wondered too (first paragraph of the original mail).
> True. I'm just trying to emphasise the principle that "if you merge
> it, you're signing off on it" has to cover this area too.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Guidelines regarding LLM assisted contributions
Posted by Michael Bien <mb...@gmail.com>.
Hi Gani,
On 6/17/26 17:02, Gani Gürgah wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to clarify my position regarding my recent PR (#9414).
>
> First, I acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the use of LLM content
> in contributions.
> My intention was simply to address a technical gap - the lack of support
> for WebLogic 14c - which I originally reported as an issue in 2023 (#6109)
> I was forced to migrate my development environment to IntelliJ, simply
> because the current projects I am working on require WebLogic 14c, and
> NetBeans did not provide the necessary support.
> As a long-time NetBeans user who values this project, I decided to
> contribute the fix back to NetBeans.
thanks for working on the weblogic support update! The discussion wasn't triggered by your PR specifically, we have several other PRs open atm which were created using LLM assistance and it will only become more common.
We didn't have anything in the repo which mentions LLM policy - at some point we would have to talk about this anyway like many other projects already did.
> (...)
> Given the ongoing discussion and the uncertainty regarding policy, I have
> decided to close the PR for now.
feel free to keep your PR open. I don't see why we wouldn't be able to integrate it. Copyright concerns don't really apply there anyway since it is a incremental update/fix of already existing code.
best regards,
michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Guidelines regarding LLM assisted contributions
Posted by Gani Gürgah <ga...@gmail.com>.
Hi everyone,
I would like to clarify my position regarding my recent PR (#9414).
First, I acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the use of LLM content
in contributions.
My intention was simply to address a technical gap - the lack of support
for WebLogic 14c - which I originally reported as an issue in 2023 (#6109)
I was forced to migrate my development environment to IntelliJ, simply
because the current projects I am working on require WebLogic 14c, and
NetBeans did not provide the necessary support.
As a long-time NetBeans user who values this project, I decided to
contribute the fix back to NetBeans.
I used LLM to the subsequent revisions requested by the reviewers. I
explicitly included the "Co-Authored-By" tag in the commit message because
I believe in full transparency regarding the origin of the code.
While I understand that the ASF is currently discussing policies regarding
AI-generated contributions, my goal was purely to provide a solution for a
missing feature that impacts many enterprise users.
Given the ongoing discussion and the uncertainty regarding policy, I have
decided to close the PR for now. However, the solution will remain
available in my repository for those who need it:
https://github.com/ganigurgah/netbeans/tree/weblogic-14c-support.
I respect the project's governance and I wish the community reaching a
clear consensus on this topic.
Best regards,
Gani
Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>, 17 Haz 2026 Çar, 12:21 tarihinde şunu
yazdı:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 at 22:25, Michael Bien <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > IMO: whether a change comes from an IDE/refactoring tool, a LLM, or a
> specially trained cat doesn't matter much to me as long a human understood
> the change, checked it for correctness and is happy about it.
>
> ... and it doesn't infringe on anything. I don't know how we can
> fulfill the ASF guidelines without knowing now, or recording for the
> future, how a contribution was generated.
>
> > That is also why I like the "Assisted-by" tag as used by the linux
> kernel, since I think it is more descriptive than "Generated-by" and
> wouldn't overload "Co-authored-by:" further etc.
>
> Yes, agreed.
>
> > > I think doing something like 1), with "Assisted-by" in both the commit
> > > message and PR description, might be desirable.
> >
> > Yeah it would be good to mention it there too.
> >
> > also: I see very few reasons why someone would need generate the PR
> text, given that it is read by humans you likely interacted with before.
> 1-3 sentences or bullet points in your own words should carry more value
> than a page which reads like a product commercial ;).
>
> I just wanted to emphasise the importance of the "Assisted-by" line
> being included in the description too. I was joking about not
> allowing LLM assisted contributions. However, I can see some merit to
> something like "You may use LLM assistance to make contributions, but
> please write the description of the pull request in your own words -
> we'd like to know you understand the changes being made!"
>
> > > It's interesting the
> > > ASF guidelines mention contributors but not committers. Certainly
> > > committers need to be aware of the ASF guidelines when producing their
> > > own contributions. But committers merging third-party pull requests,
> > > particularly from people without an ICLA, may need to know this
> > > information to be clear about the provenance, meet the guidelines and
> > > fulfill their own ICLA requirements?
> >
> > yes that is what I wondered too (first paragraph of the original mail).
>
> True. I'm just trying to emphasise the principle that "if you merge
> it, you're signing off on it" has to cover this area too.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
>
--
Gani GÜRGAH
Yazılım Geliştirme Uzmanı
Re: [DISCUSS] Guidelines regarding LLM assisted contributions
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 at 22:25, Michael Bien <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO: whether a change comes from an IDE/refactoring tool, a LLM, or a specially trained cat doesn't matter much to me as long a human understood the change, checked it for correctness and is happy about it.
... and it doesn't infringe on anything. I don't know how we can
fulfill the ASF guidelines without knowing now, or recording for the
future, how a contribution was generated.
> That is also why I like the "Assisted-by" tag as used by the linux kernel, since I think it is more descriptive than "Generated-by" and wouldn't overload "Co-authored-by:" further etc.
Yes, agreed.
> > I think doing something like 1), with "Assisted-by" in both the commit
> > message and PR description, might be desirable.
>
> Yeah it would be good to mention it there too.
>
> also: I see very few reasons why someone would need generate the PR text, given that it is read by humans you likely interacted with before. 1-3 sentences or bullet points in your own words should carry more value than a page which reads like a product commercial ;).
I just wanted to emphasise the importance of the "Assisted-by" line
being included in the description too. I was joking about not
allowing LLM assisted contributions. However, I can see some merit to
something like "You may use LLM assistance to make contributions, but
please write the description of the pull request in your own words -
we'd like to know you understand the changes being made!"
> > It's interesting the
> > ASF guidelines mention contributors but not committers. Certainly
> > committers need to be aware of the ASF guidelines when producing their
> > own contributions. But committers merging third-party pull requests,
> > particularly from people without an ICLA, may need to know this
> > information to be clear about the provenance, meet the guidelines and
> > fulfill their own ICLA requirements?
>
> yes that is what I wondered too (first paragraph of the original mail).
True. I'm just trying to emphasise the principle that "if you merge
it, you're signing off on it" has to cover this area too.
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Guidelines regarding LLM assisted contributions
Posted by Michael Bien <mb...@gmail.com>.
On 6/16/26 18:51, Neil C Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 at 23:19, Michael Bien <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Although 2) would be tempting, 1) aligns more with the ASF recommendations. I do also think that it can be useful during review to know if LLMs helped to produce a commit. (Its sometimes easy to spot, but it would remove having to guess).
> There's also the tempting 2b) - remove the advertisement fields by
> disallowing their usage entirely. Well, there hasn't been enough
> discussion in this thread yet! :-)
IMO: whether a change comes from an IDE/refactoring tool, a LLM, or a specially trained cat doesn't matter much to me as long a human understood the change, checked it for correctness and is happy about it.
During review (or when problems show up) however, it might be useful to know if some of it was generated by a refactoring script, a cat or written by hand.
That is also why I like the "Assisted-by" tag as used by the linux kernel, since I think it is more descriptive than "Generated-by" and wouldn't overload "Co-authored-by:" further etc.
Regarding forbidding LLM use for code generation entirely: Probably not necessary I think. But no strong opinions there.
btw I just saw that the graalvm project uses a ruleset which was also inspired by the linux kernel
https://github.com/oracle/graal/commit/2cdf99e580aa433675c191aae70ae515b27aabfe
> I think doing something like 1), with "Assisted-by" in both the commit
> message and PR description, might be desirable.
Yeah it would be good to mention it there too.
also: I see very few reasons why someone would need generate the PR text, given that it is read by humans you likely interacted with before. 1-3 sentences or bullet points in your own words should carry more value than a page which reads like a product commercial ;). Similar for contributions where using your own words would at least indicate that the change was understood. There is also the risk that something is submitted which wasn't read at all. Given that anyone can generate summaries after the fact the intrinsic value is likely also low.
> It's interesting the
> ASF guidelines mention contributors but not committers. Certainly
> committers need to be aware of the ASF guidelines when producing their
> own contributions. But committers merging third-party pull requests,
> particularly from people without an ICLA, may need to know this
> information to be clear about the provenance, meet the guidelines and
> fulfill their own ICLA requirements?
yes that is what I wondered too (first paragraph of the original mail).
> I must remember that footnotes should be zero-indexed, but options
> should not! :-P
sorry about that - will use letters next time.
errata: Square brackets were for links, round closing bracket for the points. The first paragraph mentions "point 3", this refers to the point *inside* ASF LLM guidelines.
-mbien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Guidelines regarding LLM assisted contributions
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 at 23:19, Michael Bien <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) should we require to disclose LLM assistance, in that case I would suggest to adopt (or get inspired by) the linux kernel coding assistance rules [1] since those are very concise and simple while being compatible with the ASF guidance page as far as I see.
>
> It would essentially require to tag commits with "Assisted-by:" if applicable, everything else remains unchanged. See [2] for our current PR template.
>
> 2) remove LLM advertisement fields from commit headers/msgs and only allow humans as authors/co-authors no matter how the commit was created. (exception: trivial automation like dependabot)
...
> Although 2) would be tempting, 1) aligns more with the ASF recommendations. I do also think that it can be useful during review to know if LLMs helped to produce a commit. (Its sometimes easy to spot, but it would remove having to guess).
There's also the tempting 2b) - remove the advertisement fields by
disallowing their usage entirely. Well, there hasn't been enough
discussion in this thread yet! :-)
I think doing something like 1), with "Assisted-by" in both the commit
message and PR description, might be desirable. It's interesting the
ASF guidelines mention contributors but not committers. Certainly
committers need to be aware of the ASF guidelines when producing their
own contributions. But committers merging third-party pull requests,
particularly from people without an ICLA, may need to know this
information to be clear about the provenance, meet the guidelines and
fulfill their own ICLA requirements?
I must remember that footnotes should be zero-indexed, but options
should not! :-P
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists