Good to see this is now enabled by ASF! I wanted to give this a try before but it wasn't available yet in the Apache org. I think it's very helpful as a first review for PRs.
One thing though: > before enabling such features, projects should discuss the workflow/resource impact with the project team What's our quota for Copilot Reviews? Will it eat into our CI resources? What happens if we use it up? Would be good to know these before enabling it. I could find anything from the ASF docs above On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 7:52 PM vaquar khan <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > Good one 👍 > > Regards, > Viquar Khan > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026, 8:33 PM Junwang Zhao <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1, this can help catch bugs or inconsistencies early in the PR process. >> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 11:20 PM Jones, Danny <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 on trialling something like GH Copilot for review. I was thinking >>> about proposing this for iceberg-rust – for the same reasons others raised >>> on reviewer bandwidth. I look forward to hearing how it goes for >>> iceberg-cpp, and wonder if anyone on the Arrow project can share how it’s >>> been for them so far. >>> >>> >>> >>> One thing raised by Andrew Lamb on one of the Arrow tuning PRs[1] is to >>> define how contributors should respond to the feedback from Copilot. I >>> think this would be useful for us too – in particular, I’d encourage >>> contributors and reviewers alike to be vocal on the comments in PRs such >>> that this can be fed back in for tuning the custom guidance – positive and >>> negative! Treat it a bit like providing feedback for a retrospective. >>> >>> >>> >>> Danny >>> >>> >>> >>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/50117 >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Renjie Liu <[email protected]> >>> *Reply to: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> *Date: *Thursday, 16 July 2026 at 07:04 >>> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> *Subject: *RE: [EXTERNAL] [DISCUSS] Enable GitHub Copilot code review >>> >>> >>> >>> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do >>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and >>> know the content is safe. >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 for this. Reviewer bandwidth is limited and if it works well for >>> iceberg-cpp, I'm looking forward to introduce it to other repos. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 1:18 PM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I would like to discuss enabling ASF-managed GitHub Copilot code review >>> for >>> Iceberg repositories, starting with iceberg-cpp as a small trial: >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg-cpp/pull/833 >>> >>> This would enable automatic Copilot review on non-draft PRs, using the >>> ASF >>> `.asf.yaml` `github.copilot_code_review` setting. >>> >>> Apache Arrow recently enabled and tuned this feature: >>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/50117 >>> >>> ASF Infra documents this as a supported `.asf.yaml` feature: >>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml#copilot-code-review >>> >>> The `.asf.yaml` docs also say that before enabling such features, >>> projects >>> should discuss the workflow/resource impact with the project team: >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml#before-you-start-using-asfyaml >>> >>> I suggest starting with iceberg-cpp first as a trial, because reviewer >>> bandwidth >>> is limited there and Copilot may provide useful first-pass feedback. If >>> it works >>> well, other Iceberg repositories can adopt a similar setup later. >>> >>> Any concerns or objections? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Gang >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Regards >> Junwang Zhao >> >
