[gdal-dev] Tightening AI based submission policy

[Andrew Bell]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2026 at 10:41 AM Greg Troxel via gdal-dev <
gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

>
> I think there are three issues, super roughly
>   - "dealing with LLM text"
>   - "LLM text in the project is bad for the project's social structure"
>   - "a broad culture of LLM use is bad for society".
> and I think you are referring the the third as "ideological".  However,
> I think most of the concerns are reachable from the first two parts
> alone.
>

I think this discussion is pretty difficult without real examples. I've
seen some translation and updating of projects that seem pretty amazing. On
the other hand, most of the non-trivial fixes that I've seen haven't been
good IMO. We had one recently in PDAL where the issue description was an
outright lie.

Personally, I think a real person should *always* write the descriptive
text of an issue or a PR. If they can't do that (succinctly), then they
don't understand enough to be submitting a PR. I'm also concerned with test
bloat. The GDAL CI loop takes forever already and adding tests for small
and probably unimportant fixes (as AI seems set on doing) only makes this
worse -- sometimes there are way more lines of test than code change. The
tests become a burden.

Anyway, perhaps someone could point out some AI PRs that they think are OK
and some that they find objectionable so that the discussion can move
beyond the theoretical.

-- 
Andrew Bell
andrew.bell.ia at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20261018/fae4f5be/attachment.htm>