The above one JVM usage PR (PR#16945 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16945>) got merged. Thanks everyone for the reviews and this should significantly reduce the GH runner pressure.
Please review the Spark and Flink incremental build PRs to further reduce the GH runner usage. - https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16946 CI: Select Spark PR matrix by changed version - https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16947 CI: Select Flink PR matrix by changed version - Ajantha On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 3:33 PM Ajantha Bhat <[email protected]> wrote: > As a first step, we are merging this PR. > We have approvals for https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16945 CI: > Use one Java version for PR checks > > Let us know if you have any comments for this. > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 2:44 PM Ajantha Bhat <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> I have now created multiple small PRs for the easy and big wins. >> >> - https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16945 CI: Use one Java >> version for PR checks >> - https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16946 CI: Select Spark PR >> matrix by changed version >> - https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16947 CI: Select Flink PR >> matrix by changed version >> >> Please take a look. I will have two or three more follow up PRs after >> this to handle full ci flag and other module incremental builds from the >> original PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16566 >> >> - Ajantha >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 9:12 PM Manu Zhang <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>
