Thanks Kevin for the investigation! Now I think we are clear that the ASF setting is simply an automation enablement and it is billed to the PR author with Copilot access.
Let me merge the iceberg-cpp PR to move forward! On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 2:15 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > Done some research on this. Here's what I found. > > 1. copilot_code_review in .asf.yaml *creates an active GitHub ruleset* > that *automatically requests Copilot review for qualifying pull requests* > (apache/infrastructure-asfyaml ref > <https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml/blob/76d241ccef02e5397e10c173ebf04c07525311ea/asfyaml/feature/github/copilot_code_review.py#L34-L54>). > The ASF setting only manages the repository ruleset; it does not assign > Copilot licenses or enable paid usage. > > 2. *For an automatically triggered review, the AI-credit usage is > attributed to the PR author*. *For a manually requested review, it is > attributed to the person who requested it*. GitHub Docs (under "Code > review usage") > <https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/concepts/agents/code-review#code-review-usage> > > 3. Copilot review also uses GitHub Actions for agentic capabilities such > as full-repository context gathering and tool use. Those Actions minutes > are *attributed to the repository*, and then to its enterprise or cost > center where applicable—not to the PR author. GitHub Docs (under "Code > review usage") > <https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/concepts/agents/code-review> > > 4. *Users without a Copilot license that includes code review*—including > Copilot Free users—do not have a monthly AI-credit allowance for review. An > organization can separately allow reviews for these users by enabling both > *paid > AI-credit usage* and *code review for users without a license*. In that > case, the AI credits are billed directly to the organization or enterprise. > GitHub > Docs (under "Copilot code review without a Copilot license") > <https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/concepts/agents/code-review#copilot-code-review-without-a-copilot-license> > and > Github Docs (under "Users without a Copilot license or plan that includes > Copilot code review") > <https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/concepts/agents/code-review#users-without-a-copilot-license-or-plan-that-includes-copilot-code-review> > > - If those two organization-level policies are not enabled, *automatic > review will not run for an author* who lacks access to Copilot code > review. > > I believe ASF org does NOT have these settings enabled, so copilot review > will simply not run for pr where the author does not have copilot review. > Others can still manually request reviews. Verifying the org level settings > with ASF infra (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-28138) > > > > Now that we understand the cost structure, I think we can move forward and > give it a try. > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 10:31 PM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Since other apache repos have enabled it, i think it's safe for us to >> experiment. Let me try to find out where the Copilot resource credit comes >> from, I'll report back. >> For the GitHub Actions minutes, we have spare minutes thanks to all the >> great work already done to improve our CI. >> >> I approved the iceberg-cpp pr to enable copilot review. Please report >> back on your experience, I think it can benefit other repos too. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 9:47 PM Scott Haines <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1. >>> Still good to understand the limitations. Having a first line of review, >>> or just using co-pilot to classify or tag a PR is also a good use of the >>> free credits. >>> >>> >>> *Scott Haines* >>> Engineer >>> 408.768.3799 >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 8:59 PM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> From GitHub's billing docs, Copilot code review consumes both AI >>>> credits and GitHub Actions minutes (which are free for public repos.) >>>> >>>> The AI credit quota depends on ASF's GitHub/Copilot billing setup, >>>> which does not seem to be publicly documented. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 11:22 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>
