Ajantha, sorry I missed your early email. It will be great to split your PR and get the enhancements for Spark CI or Flink CI in first.
Kevin, that's good news! > CI should generally run by default for relevant changes, with explicit > opt-outs where appropriate. Agreed. I believe there are still low hanging fruits we can pick based on Ajantha and others' PRs. Thanks, Manu On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 2:17 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>>
