Skip to content
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
30 changes: 25 additions & 5 deletions mkdocs/docs/index.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ The Iceberg C++ Project is hosted on GitHub at [https://github.com/apache/iceber
#### Prerequisites

- CMake 3.25 or higher
- C++23 compliant compiler (GCC 11+, Clang 14+, MSVC 2022+)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems conflict with #528

- C++23 compliant compiler (GCC 14+, Clang 17+, MSVC 2022+)
- Git

#### Building from Source
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -129,6 +129,30 @@ pre-commit install

This will setup a git pre-commit-hook that is executed on each commit and will report the linting problems. To run all hooks on all files use `pre-commit run -a`.

### AI-Assisted Contributions

The Apache Iceberg C++ community has the following policy for AI-assisted PRs:

- The PR author should **understand the core ideas** behind the implementation **end-to-end**, and be able to justify the design and code during review.
- **Calls out unknowns and assumptions**. It's okay to not fully understand some bits of AI generated code. You should comment on these cases and point them out to reviewers so that they can use their knowledge of the codebase to clear up any concerns. For example, you might comment "calling this function here seems to work but I'm not familiar with how it works internally, I wonder if there's a race condition if it is called concurrently".

#### Why fully AI-generated PRs without understanding are not helpful

Today, AI tools cannot reliably make complex changes to the codebase on their own, which is why we rely on pull requests and code review.

The purposes of code review are:

1. Finish the intended task.
2. Share knowledge between authors and reviewers, as a long-term investment in the project. For this reason, even if someone familiar with the codebase can finish a task quickly, we're still happy to help a new contributor work on it even if it takes longer.

An AI dump for an issue doesn’t meet these purposes. Maintainers could finish the task faster by using AI directly, and the submitters gain little knowledge if they act only as a pass through AI proxy without understanding.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
An AI dump for an issue doesnt meet these purposes. Maintainers could finish the task faster by using AI directly, and the submitters gain little knowledge if they act only as a pass through AI proxy without understanding.
An AI dump for an issue doesn't meet these purposes. Maintainers could finish the task faster by using AI directly, and the submitters gain little knowledge if they act only as a pass through AI proxy without understanding.

Should we stick to ' since it's a plain ASCII?


Please understand the reviewing capacity is **very limited** for the project, so large PRs which appear to not have the requisite understanding might not get reviewed, and eventually closed or redirected.

#### Better ways to contribute than an “AI dump”
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
#### Better ways to contribute than an AI dump
#### Better ways to contribute than an "AI dump"

Same question here.


It's recommended to write a high-quality issue with a clear problem statement and a minimal, reproducible example. This can make it easier for others to contribute.

### Submitting Changes

#### Git Workflow
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -184,7 +208,3 @@ New to the project? Check out our [good first issues](https://github.com/apache/
### Release Process

Releases are managed by the Apache Iceberg project maintainers. For information about the release process, please refer to the main Iceberg project documentation.

## License
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do you remove this? It is an unrelated change.


Licensed under the [Apache License, Version 2.0](http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
Loading