ezyang’s blog

Do you use an LLM for coding? Do you maintain a personal benchmark based on problems you have posed the LLM? The purpose of this blog post is to convince you should do this: that you can do so with marginal effort on top of your day-to-day vibe coding and that you will get both short and long term benefits from making your own personal benchmark exist.

---

I started thinking about benchmarks for coding in part with my frustration with the discourse around LLMs in the public squares I frequent (Reddit and Twitter). People often want to know "what's the best model" or "what's the best coding IDE"? One might imagine that the way to answer this question would be to test the models on a variety of problems from real world uses of the LLM for coding, and then compare how well various systems do on this. Indeed, whenever a new SOTA model releases, the lab will usually tell you about the model's performance against a few well known coding benchmarks. Problem solved?

Of course not! In fact, for the most part, no one really talks about benchmarks when comparing models. Why? I argue the most popular benchmarks measure tasks that are largely different from what a user wants out of an LLM. For example, take the recent Gemini 2.5 Pro release. In their headline table, they test against LiveCodeBench, Aider Polyglot and SWE-bench Verified. Both LiveCodeBench and Aider Polyglot derive their problems from contest programming and pedagogical exercises (respectively), while SWE-bench assesses bug fixes to preexisting codebases. While useful, this is only a small slice things people want to do with LLMs.

Wouldn't it be great if you had your own, personal benchmark, based on problems you actually care about? If you are tweaking your .cursorrules, you could run your benchmark to see if a change you made helped or not. When a new model comes out, you could spend a few bucks to run your eval and make a decision if you should switch your daily driver. And then on social media, if you wanted to stan the new model, instead of asking the model to drop a ball inside a rotating hexagon or vagueposting about how the new model is incredible, you could just post your benchmark results.

---

Nicholas Carlini's Yet Another Applied LLM Benchmark is an existence proof that this playbook can work. As Nicholas describes it:

It's a collection of nearly 100 tests I've extracted from my actual conversation history with various LLMs.

There are two defining features of this benchmark that make it interesting. Most importantly, I've implemented a simple dataflow domain specific language to make it easy for me (or anyone else!) to add new tests that realistically evaluate model capabilities. This DSL allows for specifying both how the question should be asked and also how the answer should be evaluated. Most questions are evaluated by actually running the code the model writes but the framework supports a bunch of other evaluation methods as well. And then, directly as a result of this, I've written nearly 100 tests for different situations I've actually encountered when working with LLMs as assistants.

I have been working on my own benchmark based off of Carlini's benchmark, and I can confirm that this works well for the traditional style of coding eval, where you have a one-shot task that generates and executes the code against some test cases. My basic strategy is to vibe code as usual, but whenever I give an LLM a task that it isn't able to one shot, I consider adding it to the benchmark. In more detail:

• I only add a task if a SOTA LLM failed it. This ensures the benchmark consists of all appropriate difficulty problems: easy enough that I thought an LLM should be able to do it, but hard enough that a SOTA model failed on it. I don't need problems that are too hard (this is already well covered by well known benchmarks like SWE-Bench or SWE-Lancer), and I don't mind if my problems saturate because, hey, that means the models are that much better for my use cases!
• After I have added the task to the benchmark, I can use the benchmark runner to tell if changing the model, tweaking the prompt, or even just running the prompt again at nonzero temperature can make it pass. Indeed, it's helpful to find some configuration that makes the eval pass, as this is good for debugging issues in the evaluation function itself... also it means you have working code for whatever task you were working on. Conversely, you can make the task harder by leaving things out from the prompt.
• Writing the test is the labor intensive part, but you can always vibe code a test. Importantly, you have a failing implementation (your initial generation) and some way you (manually?) determined that the implementation was wrong, so just turn this into your evaluation function! (And for all you yak shaving aficionados, if the model fails to vibe code your test, well, you have another task for your benchmark!)

For example, the other day I needed to take an asciinema recording and convert it into a sequence of frames rendered as plain text. However, the only project for doing these conversations was agg, which converts recordings into animated gifs. In agg_to_text, I ask an LLM to take agg's source code and create a new program which dumps the frames as plain text rather than gif images. The reason why this task is difficult, is because there is some discretion in deciding when to emit a frame, and with my original prompt the LLM didn't precisely replicate the original behavior in agg. While working on the benchmark, I realized that instructing the model specifically about how frame batching worked was enough to get it to preserve the original behavior. But I don't think I should need to do this: thus this task. (P.S. If this test saturates, well, I can always make it harder by removing the agg source code from the prompt.)

---

The ability to benchmark one shot tasks is here today, but I would like to speculate a bit about what lies beyond them. In particular, most of my LLM coding activity involves asking the LLM to make changes to a pre-existing project, which makes it less amenable to "single prompt creates self contained program". (Also, I usually only ask one-shot questions that the LLM can answer, so most of them would never go in my benchmark.)

In short, how can I extract tasks from my day-to-day work? There seems to be two big extra levers we have:

• Codebase tasks. This is the heavy-weight approach: you record the Git commit of your codebase at the time you prompted for some new feature to be added, and then when you want to run an eval on a new model you just check out the codebase at that commit and let the end-to-end system go. You'll typically want to execute the modified code, which means you'll also need a way to reliably setup the runtime environment for the code; things like lockfiles can help a lot here.
• Transcript tasks. You don't actually need the entire codebase to be available to ask an LLM for a completion; you only need the conversation transcript up to the point of the critical generation. If the transcript is mostly your agent system reading in files for context, you can end up with a relatively system generic prompt that can tell you something about other systems. Of course, if you want to actually run the change, you still need the full codebase, which is why this approach is much more amenable if you're going to do some static analysis on the output. For example, if a model keeps adding try: ... except: ... blocks that are suppressing errors, you can take some transcripts where you've caught the model red-handed doing this and make an eval that checks if the model is still doing this. I suspect testing on transcripts works best for testing if changing prompts or rules improves performance, since the transcript itself will put the model into some particular latent space and if it were a different model they might have made different choices leading to a different latent space. Transcripts from thinking models are especially susceptible to this!

I have started adapting Carlini's framework to work better for these cases, although I would love to be told someone has already solved this problem for me. In particular, I am very excited about using transcript tasks to evaluate whether or not things I add to my prompts / triggered rules are helping or not. Current SOTA model instruction following isn't great and I regularly catch models doing behaviors that I explicitly told them not to in the system prompt. I have started some initial analysis over all of my chat logs to find cases where the model misbehaved, although I haven't quite worked out how I want to build an eval out of it.

One word of warning: to make transcript tasks, you need an AI coding system that doesn't obscure how it assembles its underlying prompts (which rules out most of the popular closed source AI code editors.)

---

I started building evals for a selfish reason: I wanted to be able to tell if modifications to my prompts were doing anything. But I also think there is a broader opportunity that arises if we also publish these benchmarks to the world.

For one, building a real world benchmark on use cases we care about is a way to communicate to the people training AI models whether or not they are doing well or not. Historical evals have focused on LeetCoding, and consequently we have models that would ace any big tech interview and yet on real world tasks will drive you off a cliff at the first opportunity. And this is not just free labor for the top labs: if you believe in open source models, one of the biggest barriers to good small models is having really high quality data. We, the OSS vibe coding community, can directly help here.

I think there is a tremendous opportunity for the open source community to really push the state of the art in coding evaluations. There's only so many benchmarks that I, personally, can create, but if everyone is making benchmarks I could eventually imagine a universe of benchmarks where you could curate the problems that are relevant to your work and quickly and cheaply judge models in this way: a Wikipedia of Coding Benchmarks.

To summarize: every time an LLM fails to solve a problem you ask it for, this is a potential new benchmark. As long as there is a way to automate testing if the LLM has solved the problem, you can turn this into a benchmark. Do this for yourself, and you can quickly have a personal benchmark with which to evaluate new models. Do this at scale, and you can help push the frontier in coding models.

In my previous two posts "Ways to use torch.compile" and "Ways to use torch.export", I often said that PyTorch would be good for a use case, but there might be some downsides. Some of the downsides are foundational and difficult to remove. But some... just seem like a little something is missing from PyTorch. In this post, here are some things I hope we will end up shipping in 2025!

Previously, I discussed the value proposition of torch.compile. While doing so, I observed a number of downsides (long compile time, complicated operational model, lack of packaging) that were intrinsic to torch.compile's API contract, which emphasized being able to work on Python code as is, with minimal intervention from users. torch.export occupies a different spot in the tradeoff space: in exchange for more upfront work making a model exportable, it allows for use of PyTorch models in environments where using torch.compile as is would be impossible.

On the surface, the value proposition of torch.compile is simple: compile your PyTorch model and it runs X% faster. But after having spent a lot of time helping users from all walks of life use torch.compile, I have found that actually understanding how this value proposition applies to your situation can be quite subtle! In this post, I want to walk through the ways to use torch.compile, and within these use cases, what works and what doesn't. By the way, some of these gaps are either served by export, or by missing features we are actively working on, those will be some other posts!

Tensor libraries like PyTorch and JAX have developed compact and accelerated APIs for manipulating n-dimensional arrays. N-dimensional arrays are kind of similar to tables in database, and this results in the logical question which is could you setup a Tensor-like API to do queries on databases that would be normally done with SQL? We have two challenges:

• Tensor computation is typically uniform and data-independent. But SQL relational queries are almost entirely about filtering and joining data in a data-dependent way.
• JOINs in SQL can be thought of as performing outer joins, which is not a very common operation in tensor computation.

However, we have a secret weapon: first class dimensions were primarily designed to as a new frontend syntax that made it easy to express einsum, batching and tensor indexing expressions. They might be good for SQL too.

Representing the database. First, how do we represent a database? A simple model following columnar database is to have every column be a distinct 1D tensor, where all columns part of the same table have a consistent indexing scheme. For simplicity, we'll assume that we support rich dtypes for the tensors (e.g., so I can have a tensor of strings). So if we consider our classic customer database of (id, name, email), we would represent this as:

customers_id: int64[C]
customers_name: str[C]
customers_email: str[C]

Where C is the number of the entries in the customer database. Our tensor type is written as dtype[DIM0, DIM1, ...], where I reuse the name that I will use for the first class dimension that represents it. Let's suppose that the index into C does not coincide with id (which is good, because if they did coincide, you would have a very bad time if you ever wanted to delete an entry from the database!)

This gives us an opportunity for baby's first query: let's implement this query:

SELECT c.name, c.email FROM customers c WHERE c.id = 1000

Notice that the result of this operation is data-dependent: it may be zero or one depending on if the id is in the database. Here is a naive implementation in standard PyTorch:

mask = customers_id == 1000
return (customers_name[mask], customers_email[mask])

Here, we use boolean masking to perform the data-dependent filtering operation. This implementation in eager is a bit inefficient; we materialize a full boolean mask that is then fed into the subsequent operations; you would prefer for a compiler to fuse the masking and indexing together. First class dimensions don't really help with this example, but we need to introduce some new extensions to first class dimensions. First, what we can do:

C = dims(1)
c_id = customers_id[C]  # {C} => int64[]
c_name = customers_name[C]  # {C} => str[]
c_email = customers_email[C]  # {C} => str[]
c_mask = c_id == 1000  # {C} => bool[]

Here, a tensor with first class tensors has a more complicated type {DIM0, DIM1, ...} => dtype[DIM2, DIM3, ...]. The first class dimensions are all reported in the curly braces to the left of the double arrow; curly braces are used to emphasize the fact that first class dimensions are unordered.

What next? The problem is that now we want to do something like torch.where(c_mask, c_name, ???) but we are now in a bit of trouble, because we don't want anything in the false branch of where: we want to provide something like "null" and collapse the tensor to a smaller number of elements, much like how boolean masking did it without first class dimensions. To express this, we'll introduce a binary version of torch.where that does exactly this, as well as returning the newly allocated FCD for the new, data-dependent dimension:

C2, c2_name = torch.where(c_mask, c_name)  # {C2} => str[]
_C2, c2_email = torch.where(c_mask, c_email)  # {C2} => str[], n.b. C2 == _C2
return c2_name, c2_email

Notice that torch.where introduces a new first-class dimension. I've chosen that this FCD gets memoized with c_mask, so whenever we do more torch.where invocations we still get consistently the same new FCD.

Having to type out all the columns can be a bit tiresome. If we assume all elements in a table have the same dtype (let's call it dyn, short for dynamic type), we can more compactly represent the table as a 2D tensor, where the first dimension is the indexing as before, and the second dimension is the columns of the database. For clarity, we'll support using the string name of the column as a shorthand for the numeric index of the column. If the tensor is contiguous, this gives a more traditional row-wise database. The new database can be conveniently manipulated with FCDs, as we can handle all of the columns at once instead of typing them out individually):

customers:  dyn[C, C_ATTR]
C = dims(1)
c = customers[C]  # {C} => dyn[C_ATTR]
C2, c2 = torch.where(c["id"] == 1000, c)  # {C2} => dyn[C_ATTR]
return c2[["name", "email"]].order(C2)  # dyn[C2, ["name", "email"]]

We'll use this for the rest of the post, but the examples should be interconvertible.

Aggregation. What's the average age of all customers, grouped by the country they live in?

SELECT AVG(c.age) FROM customers c GROUP BY c.country;

PyTorch doesn't natively support this grouping operation, but essentially what is desired here is a conversion into a nested tensor, where the jagged dimension is the country (each of which will have a varying number of countries). Let's hallucinate a torch.groupby analogous to its Pandas equivalent:

customers: dyn[C, C_ATTR]
customers_by_country = torch.groupby(customers, "country")  # dyn[COUNTRY, JC, C_ATTR]
COUNTRY, JC = dims(2)
c = customers_by_country[COUNTRY, JC]  # {COUNTRY, JC} => dyn[C_ATTR]
return c["age"].mean(JC).order(COUNTRY)  # f32[COUNTRY]

Here, I gave the generic indexing dimension the name JC, to emphasize that it is a jagged dimension. But everything proceeds like we expect: after we've grouped the tensor and rebound its first class dimensions, we can take the field of interest and explicitly specify a reduction on the dimension we care about.

In SQL, aggregations have to operate over the entirety of groups specified by GROUP BY. However, because FCDs explicitly specify what dimensions we are reducing over, we can potentially decompose a reduction into a series of successive reductions on different columns, without having to specify subqueries to progressively perform the reductions we are interested in.

Joins. Given an order table, join it with the customer referenced by the customer id:

SELECT o.id, c.name, c.email FROM orders o JOIN customers c ON o.customer_id = c.id

First class dimensions are great at doing outer products (although, like with filtering, it will expensively materialize the entire outer product naively!)

customers: dyn[C, C_ATTR]
orders: dyn[O, O_ATTR]
C, O = dims(2)
c = customers[C]  # {C} => dyn[C_ATTR]
o = orders[O]  # {O} => dyn[O_ATTR]
mask = o["customer_id"] == c["id"]  # {C, O} => bool[]
outer_product = torch.cat(o[["id"]], c[["name", "email"]])  # {C, O} => dyn[["id", "name", "email"]]
CO, co = torch.where(mask, outer_product)  # {CO} => dyn[["id", "name", "email"]]
return co.order(CO)  # dyn[C0, ["id", "name", "email"]]

What's the point. There are a few reasons why we might be interested in the correspondence here. First, we might be interested in applying SQL ideas to the Tensor world: a lot of things people want to do in preprocessing are similar to what you do in traditional relational databases, and SQL can teach us what optimizations and what use cases we should think about. Second, we might be interested in applying Tensor ideas to the SQL world: in particular, I think first class dimensions are a really intuitive frontend for SQL which can be implemented entirely embedded in Python without necessitating the creation of a dedicated DSL. Also, this might be the push needed to get TensorDict into core.

One of the things that I learned in grad school is that even if you've picked an important and unsolved problem, you need some reason to believe it is solvable--especially if people have tried to solve it before! In other words, "What's different this time?" This is perhaps a dreary way of shooting down otherwise promising research directions, but you can flip it around: when the world changes, you can ask, "What can I do now that I couldn't do before?"

This post is a list of problems in areas that I care about (half of this is PL flavor, since that's what I did my PhD in), where I suspect something has changed with the advent of LLMs. It's not a list of recipes; there is still hard work to figure out how exactly an LLM can be useful (for most of these, just feeding the entire problem into ChatGPT usually doesn't work). But I often talk to people want to get started on something, anything, but have no idea to start. Try here!

Static analysis. The chasm between academic static analysis work and real world practice is the scaling problems that come with trying to apply the technique to a full size codebase. Asymptotics strike as LOC goes up, language focused techniques flounder in polyglot codebases, and "Does anyone know how to write cmake?" But this is predicated on the idea that static analysis has to operate on a whole program. It doesn't; humans can do perfectly good static analysis on fragments of code without having to hold the entire codebase in their head, without needing access to a build system. They make assumptions about APIs and can do local reasoning. LLMs can play a key role in drafting these assumptions so that local reasoning can occur. What if the LLM gets it wrong? Well, if an LLM could get it wrong, an inattentive junior developer might get it wrong too--maybe there is a problem in the API design. LLMs already do surprisingly well if you one-shot prompt them to find bugs in code; with more traditional static analysis support, maybe they can do even better.

DSL purgatory. Consider a problem that can be solved with code in a procedural way, but only by writing lots of tedious, error prone boilerplate (some examples: drawing diagrams, writing GUIs, SQL queries, building visualizations, scripting website/mobile app interactions, end to end testing). The PL dream is to design a sweet compositional DSL that raises the level of abstraction so that you can render a Hilbert curve in seven lines of code. But history is also abound with cases where the DSL did not solve the problems, or maybe it did solve the problem but only after years of grueling work, and so there are still many problems that feel like there ought to be a DSL that should solve them but there isn't. The promise of LLMs is that they are extremely good at regurgitating low level procedural actions that could conceivably be put together in a DSL. A lot of the best successes of LLMs today is putting coding powers in the hands of domain experts that otherwise do not how to code; could it also help in putting domain expertise in the hands of people who can code?

I am especially interested in these domains:

• SQL - Its strange syntax purportedly makes it easier for non-software engineers to understand, whereas many (myself included) would often prefer a more functional syntax ala LINQ/list comprehensions. It's pretty hard to make an alternate SQL syntax take off though, because SQL is not one language, but many many dialects everywhere with no obvious leverage point. That sounds like an LLM opportunity. Or heck, just give me one of those AI editor environments but specifically fine tuned for SQL/data visualization, don't even bother with general coding.
• End to end testing - This is https://momentic.ai/ but personally I'm not going to rely on a proprietary product for testing in my OSS projects. There's definitely an OSS opportunity here.
• Scripting website/mobile app interactions - The website scraping version of this is https://reworkd.ai/ but I am also pretty interested in this from the browser extension angle: to some extent I can take back control of my frontend experience with browser extensions; can I go further with LLMs? And we typically don't imagine that I can do the same with a mobile app... but maybe I can??

OSS bread and butter. Why is Tesseract still the number one OSS library for OCR? Why is smooth and beautiful text to voice not ubiquitous? Why is the voice control on my Tesla so bad? Why is the wake word on my Android device so unreliable? Why doesn't the screenshot parser on a fansite for my favorite mobage not able to parse out icons? The future has arrived, but it is not uniformly distributed.

Improving the pipeline from ephemeral to durable stores of knowledge. Many important sources of knowledge are trapped in "ephemeral" stores, like Discord servers, private chat conversations, Reddit posts, Twitter threads, blog posts, etc. In an ideal world, there would be a pipeline of this knowledge into more durable, indexable forms for the benefit of all, but actually doing this is time consuming. Can LLMs help? Note that the dream of LLMs is you can just feed all of this data into the model and just ask questions to it. I'm OK with something a little bit more manual, we don't have to solve RAG first.

One of the annoying things about scraping websites is bouncing back and forth between the browser where you are using Dev Tools to work out what selectors you should be using to scrape out data, and your actual scraping script, which is usually some batch program that may have to take a few steps before the step you are debugging. A batch script is fine once your scraper is up and running, but while developing, it's really handy to pause the scraping process at some page and fiddle around with the DOM to see what to do.

This interactive-style development is exactly what Juypter notebooks shine at; when used in conjunction with a browser-based scraping library like Puppeteer, you can have exactly this workflow. Here's the setup:

1. Puppeteer is a JavaScript library, so you'll need a JavaScript kernel for Jupyter to run it. As an extra complication, Puppeteer is also async, so you'll need a kernel that supports async execution. Fortunately, ijavascript-await provides exactly this. Note that on recent versions of node this package does not compile; you can install this PR which makes this work: https://github.com/n-riesco/ijavascript/pull/257 Hypothetically, we should be able to use stock ijavascript when node supports top level await, but this currently does not work: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/40898
2. Inside the directory you will store your snotebooks, you'll need to npm install puppeteer so that it's available for your notebooks.
3. Launch Puppeteer with let puppeteer = require('puppeteer'); let browser = await puppeteer.launch({headless: false}); and profit!

There will be a live browser instance which you can poke at using Dev Tools, and you type commands into the Jupyter notebook and see how they affect the browser state.

I tweeted about this and the commenters had some good suggestions about other things you could try:

• You don't have to use Puppeteer; Selenium can also drive the browser, and it has a Python API to boot (so no faffing about with alternate Jupyter kernels necessary). I personally prefer working in JavaScript for crawlers, since the page scripting itself is also in JavaScript, but this is mostly a personal preference thing.
• For simple interactions, where all you really want is to just do a few interactions and record them, Headless Recorder provides a nice extension for just directly recording operations in your browser and then getting them out in executable form. I haven't tried it out yet but it seems like it would be very easy to use.

I'm launching a new podcast, the PyTorch Developer Podcast. The idea is to be a place for the PyTorch dev team to do bite sized (10-20 min) topics about all sorts of internal development topics in PyTorch. For now, it's just me monologuing for fifteen minutes about whatever topic I decide. The plan is to release an episode daily, five days a week, until I run out of things to say (probably not for a while, I have SO MANY THINGS TO SAY). I don't edit the podcasts and do minimal planning, so they're a bit easier to do than blog posts. Check it out! There's two episodes out already, one about how we do Python bindings for our C++ objects and another about history and constraints of the dispatcher. If there are any topics you'd like me to cover, give a shout.

At Facebook, we have an internal convention for tooling called "rage". When something goes wrong and you want to report a bug, the tool developer will typically ask you to give them a rage. For a command line tool, this can be done by running a rage subcommand, which will ask about which previous CLI invocation you'd like to report, and then giving you a bundle of logs to send to the developer.

A rage has an important property, compared to a conventional log level flag like -v: rage recording is always on. In other words, it is like traditional server application logs, but applied to client software. Logging is always turned on, and the rage subcommand makes it easy for a user to send only the relevant portion of logs (e.g., the logs associated with the command line invocation that is on).

For some reason, rage functionality is not that common in open source tools. I can imagine any number of reasons why this might be the case:

• Adding proper logging is like flossing--annoying to do at the time even when it can save you a lot of pain later.
• Even if you have logging, you still need to add infrastructure to save the logs somewhere and let users retrieve them afterwards.
• It's something of an art to write logs that are useful enough so that developer can diagnose the problem simply by "reading the tea leaves", but not so detailed that they slow down normal execution of the program. And don't forget, you better not expose private information!
• Most programs are simple, and you can just fall back on the old standby of asking the user to submit reproduction instructions in their bug report.

Still, in the same way most sysadmins view logging as an invaluable tool for debugging server issues, I think rage reporting is an invaluable tool for debugging client issues. In ghstack, it didn't take very many lines of code to implement rage reporting: ghstack.logs (for writing the logs to the rage directory) and ghstack.rage (for reading it out). But it has greatly reduced my support load for the project; given a rage, I can typically figure out the root cause of a bug without setting up a reproducer first.

PyTorch is a fairly large and active open source project, and sometimes we have people come to us and ask if there are any lessons from how we run PyTorch that they could apply to their own projects. This post is an attempt to describe some of the processes as of 2021 that help PyTorch operate effectively as an open source project. I won't claim that everything we do necessarily the best way to go about doing things, but at the very least, everything I describe here is working in practice.

Background. Not all open source projects are the same, and there are some peculiarities to PyTorch which may reduce the applicability of some of what I describe below in other contexts. Here are some defining features of PyTorch, as a project:

• The majority of full time PyTorch developers work at Facebook. To be clear, there are many full time PyTorch developers that work at other companies: NVIDIA, Intel, Quansight, Microsoft, AMD, IBM, Preferred Networks, Google and Amazon all employ people whose job it is to work on PyTorch. But the majority of full timers are at Facebook, distinguishing PyTorch from hobbyist open source projects or projects run by a foundation of some sort.
• PyTorch is a federation. As coined by Nadia Eghbal, PyTorch is a project with high contributor growth and user growth. In my State of PyTorch (2020) talk, I go into more details, but suffice to say, we have over nine companies contributing to PyTorch, and a long tail of other contributors (making up 40% of all of our commits). This makes managing PyTorch sometimes particularly challenging, and many of the processes I will describe below arose from growing pains scaling this level of activity.
• PyTorch has a lot of surface area. CPU, CUDA, ROCm, ONNX, XLA, serving, distributions, quantization, etc. It's impossible for a single contributor to be well-versed in every area of the project, and so some of the challenge is just making sure the right people see the things they need to see.

Alright, so how does PyTorch deal with its scale? Here are some of the things we do.

Issue triage. PyTorch receives too many bug reports a day for any one person to keep track of all of them. Largely inspired by this apenwarr post, we setup an oncall rotation amongst Facebook contributors to serve as first line triage for all of these issues. The golden rule of issue triage is that you DO NOT fix bugs in triage; the goal of triage is to (1) route bugs to the correct people via appropriate GitHub labels, and (2) look for high priority bugs and raise awareness of these bugs. Every week, we have a meeting to review high priority bugs (and other bugs marked for triage review) and talk about them. The oncall itself rotates daily, to discourage people from letting a week's worth of issues pile up in the backlog, and we use a relatively intricate search query to make sure only relevant issues show up for the oncall to handle.

The most important consequence of issue triage is that you can unwatch PyTorch repository as a whole. Instead, by watching various labels (using our cc bot), you can trust that you will get CC'ed to issues related to topics, even if the triager doesn't know that you're interested in the issue! The weekly meeting makes sure that all maintainers collectively have an idea about what major issues are currently affecting PyTorch, and helps socialize what we as a project think of as a "high priority" issue. Finally, the high priority label is a good way to find impactful problems to work on in the project, even if you don't know much else about the project.

Pull request triage. Similarly, we receive a decent number of drive by pull requests from one time contributors. Those people are not in a good position to find reviewers for their contributions, so we also have a triager look through these pull requests and make sure someone is assigned to review them. If the PR is particularly simple, the triager might just go ahead and merge it themselves. There's actually some good automation for doing this (e.g., homu) but we've been too lazy to set any of it up, and by hand reviewer assignment doesn't seem to be too much burden on top of the existing oncall.

Tree hugging oncall. PyTorch has a huge CI system covering many different system configurations which most contributors rely on to test if their changes are safe. Sometimes people break master. Separate from the triage oncall, we have a tree hugging oncall whose job it is to revert jobs if they break master. This oncall involves mostly paying attention to the CI HUD and reverting commits if they result in master breakage in one of the configurations.

Importing to Facebook infrastructure. We actually run Facebook infrastructure directly off of the HEAD branch in PyTorch. The tooling that makes this possible is fbshipit, which mirrors commits between Facebook's internal monorepo and our public GitHub repository. This setup has been something of a double-edged sword for us: requiring Facebook and GitHub to be in sync means that only Facebook employees can actually land pull requests (we try to streamline the process as much as possible for external maintainers, but at the end of the day someone at Facebook has to actually push the green button), but it means we don't have to worry about doing periodic "mega-imports" into Facebook infrastructure (which we have done in the past and were quite difficult to do). We are very interested in fixing this situation and have floated some proposals on changing how we do internal releases to make it possible to let external contributors land PRs directly.

RFCs. Most feature discussion happens on GitHub issues, but sometimes, a feature is too big and complicated to adequately discuss in a GitHub issue. In those cases, they can be discussed in the rfcs repository (inspired by the Rust RFCs process). The formal process on this repository isn't too solidified yet, but generally people go there if they feel that it is too difficult to discuss the issue in GitHub issues. We don't yet have a process for shepherding unsolicited RFCs.

Conclusion. PyTorch's open source process isn't rocket science: there's an oncall, the oncall does some things. The devil is in the details: all of PyTorch's oncall responsibilities are carefully scoped so that your oncall responsibilities aren't something that will take an unbounded amount of time; they're something you can knock out in an hour or two and call it a day. You could make the argument that we rely excessively on oncalls when automation is possible, but what we have found is that oncalls require less infrastructure investment, and integrate well with existing processes and flows at Facebook. They might not be right everywhere, but at least for us they seem to be doing a good job.