Hello, Currently there are 1024 open PRs which is crazy. Anything beyond 200 isn’t manageable.
I think 5 is a very reasonable limit. Based on the number of open PRs we shouldn’t be arguing over a higher number until the situation improves. There is no point in having 10 open PRs if no one has the time to review them. The longer it takes to get some feedback, the more time you have to move on to another issue and then open another PR which will then lead to even further delay for a review. Hopefully with a more strict limit, contributors will go for quality over quantity. The only problematic situation I can think of, is when someone has reached the limit but needs to open a PR for an urgent fix for a bug, a security issue, a flaky test, etc. Github allows for a whitelist with users exempt from the limit. I think in that case, maintainers could temporarily add the user to the list. +1 for 5 Thanks, Christos On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 at 22:51 Andrew Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for pushing all of this, +1 on 7. > > To be clear, I am one of the group A contributors on Jarek's list, so I am > not a neutral party here. > Personally I would prefer a higher cap like 10... but I agree with Jarek's > and Vincent's point that reviewing and helping others is what Airflow needs > most right now. > > I ran some numbers for group A. Since drafts PR now count, here is what a > cap of 7 means for the 9 people in that group: > ("typical / busy" = open PRs at p50 / p90 over the days they had any PR > open; "over 7" = share of those days above 7): > > - SameerMesiah97: typical 7, busy 10, over 7 on 43% of days > - shivaam: typical 4, busy 7, over 7 on 9% > - Vamsi-klu: typical 6, busy 13, over 7 on 45% > - Andrushika: typical 7, busy 11, over 7 on 48% > - yuseok89: typical 4, busy 10, over 7 on 18% > - steveahnahn: typical 2, busy 10, over 7 on 20% > - ColtenOuO: typical 5, busy 25, over 7 on 40% > - stephen-bracken: typical 1, busy 6, over 7 on 1% > - fat-catTW: typical 5, busy 17, over 7 on 42% > > With a cap of 7, about half of the group would be at or above the limit on > roughly 4 days in 10. > I am not raising this to argue for a higher number; completely fine > starting at 7 for the reason above. Just want it on record, so that if we > revisit the number later we have a baseline. > > On a related note, I like Henry's trust list idea (the bypass list Damian > mentioned). > The numbers above show that the number of good contributors (I assume that > is group A mentioned above) that would need it is small, so the bypass list > should be easy to maintain. > If we agree it is the right direction, I can look into the .asf.yaml side. > > > Thanks, > Andrew >
