+1 Yes, there had been a lot of PRs lately and our previous 3 days review windows (if I recall) somehow may not get honored. orca-review-bot does seem to be helpful.
Thanks, Yong Zheng On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 12:11 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey folks, > > It’s great to see more contributions coming into Polaris! At the same time, > the review load is pretty high, so it’s normal for some PRs to take longer > to get reviewed. > > I’d encourage more people to help with reviews. It is helpful even you > don’t review the whole PR and look at the parts you’re familiar with and > sharing feedback. > > For authors using AI, I think we should be the first reviewers of the code > and docs it generates. At least read and understand what you’re submitting, > and challenge its decisions. Do we really need this extra doc or a new > interface? Can we solve the problem within the existing design? A few > rounds of AI review, combined with your own judgment, can help catch issues > that a single pass might miss. Few-shot is always better than one-shot, > esp. with human’s insights. Taking responsibility for this initial review > helps reduce the back and forth with reviewers. > > As I mentioned in my earlier email [1], please keep PRs small and well > scoped. They’re easier to review thoroughly and usually have a faster > turnaround. Even if AI makes it easy to produce a large change quickly, > splitting it into focused PRs still helps everyone. > > Just my two cents. Curious what you all think. > > Thanks, > Yufei > > [1] PR review and committership, September 2 ( > https://lists.apache.org/thread/jdsc283vwbrff822kw2hh5nlb6qbw6x6) >
