Thanks everyone for all the contributions to reduce CI resource usage. I've seen a number of improvements go in already. I just checked the apache dashboard, it looks like we're still under the ceiling set by ASF, for both 5 day and 7 day periods.
There's definitely more room for improvement. But I think we should prioritize correctness and coverage. I would also like to focus on maintainability and avoid patterns that require ongoing manual maintenance to opt changes into CI, since those can quietly reduce coverage over time. CI should generally run by default for relevant changes, with explicit opt-outs where appropriate. Regarding the other repos, I pulled the github action usage data for the past 7 days: Repository Workflow runs Jobs Runner minutes % of total apache/iceberg 3,574 14,909 177,594.8 77.45% apache/iceberg-cpp 1,455 2,960 26,888.5 11.73% apache/iceberg-rust 1,078 3,416 18,196.7 7.94% apache/iceberg-python 594 1,445 3,387.4 1.48% apache/iceberg-go 633 1,188 3,154.1 1.38% apache/terraform-provider-iceberg 42 48 71.0 0.03% *Total* *7,376* *23,966* *229,292.5* *100.00%* Looks like java repo is still the top contributor :) Best, Kevin Liu On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 6:39 AM Ajantha Bhat <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Manu, all of these were handled in the parent PR I mentioned three > weeks ago. > Can we all please review this? > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16566 > > I can split into smaller PRs if required. > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 1:59 PM Manu Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Here's another quick win from scoping Spark CI to only changed Spark >> versions [1]. We usually open a PR first against the latest Spark version >> and then back-port it to previous versions after the merge. Running Spark >> CI for all Spark versions in such cases wastes resources. >> >> If this approach is approved, I can also make a PR for Flink CI. >> >> >> 1. https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16800 >> >> Thanks, >> Manu >> >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2026 at 8:34 AM Abnob Doss <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> A potential small win from the subproject side: the iceberg-rust Python >>> bindings CI had ended up building the Rust bindings twice per run, due to >>> an accidental interaction between a few changes over time. One-line fix: >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/2636 >>> >>> Measured over the past 7 days, the duplicate build took a median of 8.4 >>> min on Linux, 12.1 min on macOS, and 15.3 min on Windows, totaling about >>> 2,400 runner-minutes across 207 job executions. After the fix the same step >>> takes a few seconds. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Abanoub >>> >>> On Wednesday, June 3rd, 2026 at 9:49 AM, Bob Thomson < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > I don't think we have data to that level of granularity, it's a case >>> of looking at the Actions and their run time and frequency of execution in >>> each of your repos, and focussing on the longest running and most frequent >>> ones. That is, an Action run might only run for 5 minutes each time, but if >>> it is running 400 times a day then that occupies more than one job slot of >>> the toal of 900 ASF has, for the duration of that day. >>> > Experience so far suggests those actions that build Java are often the >>> most time consuming. >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > Kind regards, >>> > -Bob Thomson. >>> > >>> > On 2026/06/01 18:39:38 Yufei Gu wrote: >>> > > Hi Bob, >>> > > >>> > > Thanks for the heads-up and for giving the Iceberg community time to >>> work >>> > > on this. >>> > > >>> > > One question: Is the concern based on the overall GitHub Actions >>> > > consumption of the Iceberg projects(e.g., main repo, python repo, go >>> repo, >>> > > etc), or only for the main Iceberg repository? Iceberg has multiple >>> > > repositories, including the main repository as well as Python, Go, >>> Rust, >>> > > and C++ subprojects. Most of the discussion and optimization work in >>> this >>> > > thread focuses on the main repository, where the majority of CI usage >>> > > occurs. If the overall project usage is within acceptable limits, >>> would it >>> > > be possible to allow a higher quota for a single repo (the Iceberg >>> main >>> > > repository), given its broader compatibility and integration testing >>> > > requirements? >>> > > >>> > > Yufei >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 11:00 AM Steve Loughran <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > This is really good for draft builds. >>> > > > >>> > > > If I'm committing and pushing work up to a WiP PR, it is often >>> because I >>> > > > want *a* machine to do the testing; I don't care who it runs as. >>> > > > >>> > > > Forcing PRs to run as the submitter also hardens the OSS repo >>> against >>> > > > vulnerabilities in the Github Actions and other parts of the build >>> process. >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 at 17:11, Prashant Singh < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > >> Hi all, >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Great progress on the matrix reduction, incremental builds, and >>> draft PR >>> > > >> skipping ideas. I'd like to propose a complementary approach >>> that can >>> > > >> work >>> > > >> alongside all of those: running PR CI on contributor fork >>> compute >>> > > >> instead >>> > > >> of the ASF shared pool. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> How it works: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Workflows switch from pull_request to push triggers on non-main >>> > > >> branches. Each workflow: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> 1. Checks out apache/iceberg main (security boundary — >>> untrusted code >>> > > >> can't modify the workflow itself) >>> > > >> 2. Squash-merges the contributor's fork branch on top >>> > > >> 3. Runs tests on that merged tree >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Because the push event fires on the fork, GitHub bills the CI >>> minutes >>> > > >> to the fork owner's account - not the ASF shared pool. This >>> takes >>> > > >> Iceberg's PR CI usage from the ASF runners to effectively zero, >>> > > >> regardless of matrix size. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Why this is complementary: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> The optimizations discussed so far all reduce how much CI runs. >>> > > >> Fork-compute changes where >>> > > >> it runs. They compose - a leaner matrix running on fork compute >>> is >>> > > >> strictly better than either approach alone. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Inline PR status: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> A lightweight notify_test_workflow.yml (using >>> pull_request_target + >>> > > >> Checks API) is included to post fork CI results directly onto >>> the >>> > > >> upstream PR's checks tab - so reviewers see green/red status >>> inline as >>> > > >> they do today. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> *Prior art*: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Apache Spark adopted this pattern in 2024 (SPARK-47041) and has >>> been >>> > > >> running it in production since. Their full Spark CI matrix runs >>> entirely >>> > > >> on contributor forks. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15397: covers all 10 >>> > > >> workflow files. I've verified all workflows pass on fork >>> computation. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> This could be merged independently of the matrix/incremental >>> > > >> optimizations and would immediately eliminate PR CI pressure on >>> the >>> > > >> ASF pool - well within the June 8 deadline. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Thoughts? >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Prashant Singh >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 8:47 PM Renjie Liu < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > >> wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> I like the idea of cutting supported jvm runs in each ci. JVM >>> has great >>> > > >>> backward compatibility, and we run on one jvm (maybe jvm 17) and >>> trigger a >>> > > >>> nightly run for jvm 21. >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 3:17 AM Steve Loughran < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> Doing a scan of the aws-sdk bundle.jar is halfway to an audit >>> of the >>> > > >>>> maven repo, with spark the other half. >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> It seems to me that only PRs which go near >>> gradle/libs.versions.toml >>> > > >>>> are going to change dependences, so introduce new CVEs. >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> There's the separate issue "CVEs are eternal" and all existing >>> > > >>>> dependencies are collections of undiscovered/unreported cves. >>> That's >>> > > >>>> dependabot's homework, generally. >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> On Tue, 26 May 2026 at 19:49, Kevin Liu <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>>> Thanks everyone for the great ideas. >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> Here's where we stand today with respect to ASF runner usage >>> (taken >>> > > >>>>> from the link [2] above): >>> > > >>>>> GitHub Actions Build Time Used >>> > > >>>>> - past 7 days total usage: 218,321 minutes >>> > > >>>>> - past 5 days total usage: 120,241 minutes >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> *This puts us below the hard ceiling for resource usage* as >>> described >>> > > >>>>> by https://infra.apache.org/github-actions-policy.html >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> > The average number of minutes a project uses *per calendar >>> week >>> > > >>>>> MUST NOT exceed the equivalent of 25 full-time runners >>> (250,000 minutes, or >>> > > >>>>> 4,200 hours)*. >>> > > >>>>> > The average number of minutes a project uses *in any >>> consecutive >>> > > >>>>> five-day period MUST NOT exceed the equivalent of 30 full-time >>> runners >>> > > >>>>> (216,000 minutes, or 3,600 hours)*. >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> We should still make improvements wherever possible. >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> I have a few PRs to reduce CI usage further. >>> > > >>>>> - CI: Limit CVE scan runs to relevant changes #16513 >>> > > >>>>> - Build: Simplify CI workflow path filters to avoid >>> per-workflow >>> > > >>>>> maintenance #16302 >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> There are a couple of heuristics we can use >>> > > >>>>> 1. Don't run CI if not needed. For example, `site/` dir changes >>> > > >>>>> shouldn't trigger Spark/Flink/Java CI. This might be optimized >>> already, but >>> > > >>>>> we should double check just in case. >>> > > >>>>> 2. If we must run CI, fail fast. For example, if there is a >>> formatter >>> > > >>>>> issue, fail all inflight CI tasks. >>> > > >>>>> 3. Within a specific CI workflow, reduce the matrix wherever >>> possible. >>> > > >>>>> Do we really need to run all "Java versions" x "Scala >>> versions" x "Spark >>> > > >>>>> versions"? >>> > > >>>>> 4. Improve individual CI tasks. Spark CI dominates 57% of all >>> resource >>> > > >>>>> usage. I have a tracking issue where I benchmarked where all >>> that time is >>> > > >>>>> spent. See https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/16397 >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> Top CI tasks as % of resource use: >>> > > >>>>> - Spark CI: 57.68% >>> > > >>>>> - Flink CI: 13.60% >>> > > >>>>> - Java CI: 7.02% >>> > > >>>>> - CVE Scan: 3.13% >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> Best, >>> > > >>>>> Kevin Liu >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 5:35 AM Ajantha Bhat < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > >>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> Hi all, >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> How about implementing the incremental PR builder? (similar to >>> > > >>>>>> >>> https://github.com/gitflow-incremental-builder/gitflow-incremental-builder >>> > > >>>>>> ) >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> I think one of the main causes of GitHub runner pressure in >>> Iceberg >>> > > >>>>>> is the breadth of our CI matrix. We support multiple >>> languages (java, >>> > > >>>>>> python, go, rust, cpp) and integrations, and for Java we test >>> across >>> > > >>>>>> multiple JVM versions, Spark versions, Flink versions, Kafka, >>> Hive/MR, >>> > > >>>>>> REST/OpenAPI, runtime bundles, and more. That coverage is >>> valuable, but >>> > > >>>>>> running most of it for every PR is expensive and increases >>> both runner >>> > > >>>>>> usage and CI wall time. >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> I think the biggest win can be achieved by having an >>> incremental PR >>> > > >>>>>> build. >>> > > >>>>>> We already have useful building blocks for it: Gradle build >>> cache, >>> > > >>>>>> path filters, and version-selective build properties like >>> -DsparkVersions >>> > > >>>>>> and -DflinkVersions. >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> The idea is to keep full coverage on main, release branches, >>> tags, >>> > > >>>>>> and global build changes, but make PR CI depend on the files >>> changed: >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> - Spark-only changes run Spark CI, not Flink/Hive/Kafka. >>> > > >>>>>> - spark/v4.1/** changes run only Spark 4.1, not every Spark >>> > > >>>>>> version. >>> > > >>>>>> - flink/v2.0/** changes run only Flink 2.0, not every Flink >>> > > >>>>>> version. >>> > > >>>>>> - API/Core/Data/File format changes run the owning Java >>> checks >>> > > >>>>>> plus selected downstream canaries, such as latest Spark >>> and latest Flink, >>> > > >>>>>> instead of the full engine matrix. >>> > > >>>>>> - Runtime/bundle CVE checks run only for affected runtime >>> > > >>>>>> artifacts. >>> > > >>>>>> - A full-ci label or global Gradle/workflow changes can >>> still >>> > > >>>>>> force the full matrix. >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> Another possible optimization is JVM coverage. Today many PR >>> jobs run >>> > > >>>>>> across both Java 17 and Java 21. We could consider running >>> one primary JVM >>> > > >>>>>> for PRs, and reserve the full JVM matrix for main, release >>> branches, >>> > > >>>>>> nightly/scheduled builds, or PRs labeled full-ci. That would >>> further reduce >>> > > >>>>>> runner usage and PR wall time, while still preserving broad >>> compatibility >>> > > >>>>>> coverage before changes become part of the main branch. >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> A practical approach could be: >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> PRs: incremental module/version selection, mostly one JVM, >>> plus >>> > > >>>>>> targeted canaries. >>> > > >>>>>> main: full matrix across JVMs, Spark versions, Flink >>> versions, and >>> > > >>>>>> runtime checks. >>> > > >>>>>> Manual override: full-ci label for risky or cross-cutting PRs. >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> This should reduce queue time, lower GitHub runner >>> consumption, and >>> > > >>>>>> give contributors faster feedback without giving up full >>> coverage where it >>> > > >>>>>> matters most. >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> I am working on a POC >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16566 >>> > > >>>>>> Suggestions are welcome. >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> - Ajantha >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 7:35 PM Junwang Zhao < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > >>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> Hi Manu, >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 9:33 PM Manu Zhang < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > Hi Junwang, >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > Not sure about others but I usually only change status to >>> "Ready >>> > > >>>>>>> for review" when CI has passed. >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> Yeah, I agree there are trade-offs to disabling gh actions >>> for draft >>> > > >>>>>>> PRs. >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> Reasons to Disable: >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> - Cost savings: large teams and monorepos can burn through >>> GitHub >>> > > >>>>>>> Actions minutes quickly. Skipping CI for draft PRs avoids >>> spending >>> > > >>>>>>> resources on code that may not even compile yet. >>> > > >>>>>>> - Reduced noise: draft PRs are often used for >>> experimentation or >>> > > >>>>>>> work-in-progress changes. Disabling CI avoids cluttering the >>> PR >>> > > >>>>>>> timeline with transient failures while the author is still >>> iterating. >>> > > >>>>>>> - Better resource utilization: orgs with limited self-hosted >>> runners >>> > > >>>>>>> may prefer to prioritize "Ready for Review" PRs so >>> > > >>>>>>> production-relevant >>> > > >>>>>>> changes get feedback and merge capacity sooner. >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> Reasons to Keep: >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> - Early error detection: developers can use draft PRs as a >>> sandbox to >>> > > >>>>>>> validate builds and tests before requesting review. >>> > > >>>>>>> - Self-correction: failed checks on a draft PR allow authors >>> to fix >>> > > >>>>>>> lint or test issues before involving reviewers. >>> > > >>>>>>> - Higher review confidence: by the time a PR is marked >>> "Ready for >>> > > >>>>>>> Review", CI has often already passed at least once, leading >>> to a >>> > > >>>>>>> smoother review process. >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> For myself, when I create a draft PR, I'm usually sharing >>> early >>> > > >>>>>>> work-in-progress code with other developers and may not have >>> tested >>> > > >>>>>>> it >>> > > >>>>>>> thoroughly locally yet, so I sometimes prefer to disable CI. >>> That's >>> > > >>>>>>> just my personal preference though. >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > Regards, >>> > > >>>>>>> > Manu >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 3:21 PM Junwang Zhao < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 11:20 AM Junwang Zhao < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 12:13 PM Steven Wu < >>> > > >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > > Kevin's PR of removing Spark 3.4 was merged a few >>> days ago. >>> > > >>>>>>> It should reduce the Spark CI cost by ~25%. >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > > Some heavy-hitter test classes in Spark tests (core >>> and >>> > > >>>>>>> extension) cause high load due to parameter combinations. I >>> asked AI to >>> > > >>>>>>> analyze the build log and recommend changes offering the >>> best ROI. Details >>> > > >>>>>>> are in this doc. >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > > I can look into dropping some combinations without >>> > > >>>>>>> sacrificing essential coverage. E.g., we can probably drop >>> the Hadoop >>> > > >>>>>>> catalog usage in test, as it wasn't recommended for >>> production use anyway. >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > iceberg-cpp skips Actions for draft PRs [1] to reduce CI >>> > > >>>>>>> resource >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > usage a little bit. Perhaps we should apply the same >>> approach >>> > > >>>>>>> across >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > all iceberg subprojects? >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg-cpp/pull/680 >>> > > >>>>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> I've created a PR to show that, see [1], since it's a >>> draft, the >>> > > >>>>>>> CI >>> > > >>>>>>> >> won't run. If I click the `Ready for review` button, the >>> actions >>> > > >>>>>>> will >>> > > >>>>>>> >> be triggered. Let me know what you think about it. >>> > > >>>>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16561 >>> > > >>>>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > > On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 8:22 AM Matt Butrovich < >>> > > >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> Apache DataFusion similarly received this notice. For >>> > > >>>>>>> visibility to the Iceberg community, we have tracking issues >>> to try to >>> > > >>>>>>> discuss solutions: >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/22455 >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> >>> https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/issues/4406 >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> DataFusion Comet is consuming the vast majority of >>> > > >>>>>>> DataFusion resources, and like the Iceberg project it's due >>> to Spark tests >>> > > >>>>>>> (and Iceberg's Spark tests). We are doing some analysis on >>> what subsets >>> > > >>>>>>> might be appropriate for our workflows, features, and goals, >>> and will share >>> > > >>>>>>> anything that we think might translate back to the Iceberg >>> CI workflows. >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 7:43 AM Robert Thomson < >>> > > >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> Hello, Iceberg PMC. >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> In 2024, the ASF introduced the policy for GitHub >>> Actions >>> > > >>>>>>> usage >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> across the foundation[1]. The ASF Github shared >>> pool of >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> Github-hosted runners has been at, or very close to >>> the >>> > > >>>>>>> limit of >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> 900 jobs most of the time in the past few weeks and >>> this is >>> > > >>>>>>> the >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> case again today. >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> Your project has been identified as being among the >>> top 5 >>> > > >>>>>>> consumers of >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> build time over the past 7 days and we request that >>> you >>> > > >>>>>>> bring your >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> usage down by stream-lining long-running builds. >>> Contact >>> > > >>>>>>> Infra for >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> a consultation if you are unable to streamline your >>> builds >>> > > >>>>>>> further. >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> You can use the infra reporting tool[2] to monitor >>> your GHA >>> > > >>>>>>> usage as you >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> work on stream-lining, as well as locate any >>> bottlenecks in >>> > > >>>>>>> the workflows. >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> Infra will allow you two weeks time (till the 8th >>> of June, >>> > > >>>>>>> 2026) to >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> progress this, but should you still be above the >>> limits by >>> > > >>>>>>> then, >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> without a viable path forward, we will be limiting >>> your GHA >>> > > >>>>>>> usage. >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> Kind regards, >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> Bob Thomson, on behalf of ASF Infrastructure. >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> [1] >>> https://infra.apache.org/github-actions-policy.html >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> [2] >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> https://infra-reports.apache.org/#ghactions&project=iceberg&hours=24&limit=15&group=name >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > -- >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > Regards >>> > > >>>>>>> >> > Junwang Zhao >>> > > >>>>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>>>> >> -- >>> > > >>>>>>> >> Regards >>> > > >>>>>>> >> Junwang Zhao >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> -- >>> > > >>>>>>> Regards >>> > > >>>>>>> Junwang Zhao >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
