GitHub user xpinc17 created a discussion: Read-only PR review timing brief for 
Airflow: long-tail review waits

Hi Airflow maintainers,

I put together a short read-only PR review timing brief for `apache/airflow`, 
based only on public GitHub data. Nothing was installed, and nothing was posted 
or changed in the repo.

This is not meant as a criticism of the project. Airflow has a very active PR 
queue, so I was curious whether a lightweight historical read could surface any 
useful long-tail review patterns.

## What stood out

For PRs created between **2026-05-29 and 2026-06-08**:

| Metric | Observed value |
| --- | ---: |
| PRs analyzed | 458 |
| PRs waiting >48h for first review | 29 |
| Approved PRs idle >48h after last approval | 19 |
| Total review-wait, cumulative across PRs | 101.2 PR-days |
| Median first-review wait | 2.2h |

The median first-review wait looks healthy, but there is still a visible long 
tail: some PRs waited several days for first review, and some approved PRs 
remained unmerged for more than 48h.

## Longest observed first-review waits

These are longest observed waits in this window, not typical PRs:

- [#67675](https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/67675) — 7.6 days
- [#67724](https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/67724) — 154.9h
- [#67730](https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/67730) — 125.4h

## Why I’m sharing

The main pattern is not “reviews are slow” overall. It is more specific: in a 
very active repo, aging review items can fall out of view even when the typical 
PR moves quickly.

ApprovalOps is a small tool I’m building to surface those aging review items 
earlier. In this historical window, it would have flagged an estimated **40% of 
observable review-wait time** earlier, about **40.1 cumulative PR-days**. That 
is a retrospective estimate, not a guarantee.

## Caveats

- This is based only on public GitHub data.
- It does not know internal maintainer context, reviewer load, branch 
protection, or project policy.
- Aggregate first-review metrics may use merge or close time as a fallback when 
no first-review timestamp is visible.
- The examples above only include PRs with observed first-review timestamps.

If this is useful, I’m happy to share the methodology or run the same read-only 
brief for a different timeframe.

GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/airflow/discussions/68196

----
This is an automatically sent email for [email protected].
To unsubscribe, please send an email to: [email protected]

Reply via email to