I have no unique perspective to add other than an obvious question: If the PR is low quality, why not just close/reject it? Does it matter if it's AI assisted or not?
> A 19k lines-of-code Pull Request was opened in January, 2026.
Such a PR should be rejected simply because of the shear size of it, regardless of AI use. Seriously, who submits a 19k line PR? Just make many small ones.
This is a silly reactionary response. Where is the line? Can I use AI to look up APIs? Write documentation? What if I write a function and ask AI to test it? What if I manually implemented an idea that I thought about after chatting with AI a few weeks ago?
Stop treating this like it's going to go away. We need actual solutions for the FOSS community that make reviewing AI assisted work tractable.
I can see the good intention in this move, but it's not realistic. The genie isn't going back in the bottle, so the priority shouldn't be artificial limits, but more emphasis on review and sets of eyes required to sign off on a merge.
38 comments
The author of the PR is a long time nodejs contributor & conference speaker. He explicitly claims that
I've reviewed all changes myself..In the end it's a question if you trust him to submit a useful, well-reviewed PR. Doesn't matter if it was created using AI or not.
> A 19k lines-of-code Pull Request was opened in January, 2026.
Such a PR should be rejected simply because of the shear size of it, regardless of AI use. Seriously, who submits a 19k line PR? Just make many small ones.
On the other hand, I haven’t and I believe many of us, have never paid node any money so it feels weird to dictate their approach.
Stop treating this like it's going to go away. We need actual solutions for the FOSS community that make reviewing AI assisted work tractable.
@indutny explains their views in that thread.