alamb opened a new issue, #26292:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/26292

   
   ### Describe the bug
   
   The merge queue regularly removes PRs with "removed this pull request from 
the merge queue due to no response for status checks" even though **no check 
failed**.
   
   
   For example,  https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/26244 is a 2-line 
change. It was approved on 2026-10-12 at 18:12 UTC. Since then it has been 
added to the merge queue **7 times by 4 different committers** and removed **6 
times**.
   
   | Added to queue (UTC) | By | Removed (UTC) | Time in queue |
   |---|---|---|---|
   | 10-12 19:09 | @alamb | 10-12 19:14 | 5 min |
   | 10-13 10:05 | @alamb | 10-13 12:51 | 2 h 46 min (timed out) |
   | 10-13 14:36 | @mbutrovich | 10-13 18:19 | 3 h 43 min (timed out) |
   | 10-13 18:22 | @mbutrovich | 10-13 20:31 | 2 h 09 min |
   | 10-14 07:25 | @Jefffrey | 10-14 08:28 | 1 h 03 min (timed out) |
   | 10-14 08:50 | @Jefffrey | 10-14 12:40 | 3 h 50 min |
   | 10-14 12:45 | @mbutrovich | (still queued) | |
   
   
   
   In every case I looked at, checks had already passed and the rest had simply 
not finished (or started) within the hour. When the PR is added back to the 
queue, all of the CI runs again from the beginning, and often times out again.
   
   This has been happening on and off for a while (see #23400 from September), 
but over the last two days (2026-10-13 and 2026-10-14) it affected most PRs 
that went through the queue.
   
   ### Problems this causes
   
   **1. Merging an approved PR takes a long time and several manual steps**
   
   See above. Other recent examples of PRs that timed out in the queue (all 
eventually passed CI unchanged):
   
   | PR | Queue attempts | Time from first queue to merge | People who had to 
re-queue it |
   |---|---|---|---|
   | #26251 | 5 | 19.6 h | 2 |
   | #26253 | 4 | 19.6 h | 2 |
   | #25494 | 3 | 20.6 h | 2 |
   | #26132 | 2 | 17.3 h | 2 |
   | #26215 | 2 | 11.4 h | 2 |
   | #25891 | 2 | 7.0 h | 1 |
   | #26110 | 4 so far | still open (first queued 10-09) | 1 |
   | #25710 | 2 so far | still open | 1 |
   | #26092, #26096, #26224, #26164, #26010, #24093 | 1-2 so far | each timed 
out at least once on 10-13 / 10-14 | |
   
   
   **2. It burns a lot of CI capacity, because the tests do eventually finish 
but have to run again**
   
   Each timeout throws away CI work that already completed.
   
   For each timeout, 22 jobs (65 to 88 runner-minutes of work) had already 
passed when the PR was evicted. When the PR is re-queued, those 22 jobs run 
again along with everything else.
   
   For the 19 timeouts I checked on 10-13 / 10-14 alone, that is roughly 23 
runner-hours of passing CI discarded in about 36 hours. We are already a top 
ASF consumer of GitHub Actions minutes:
   - #25148
   
   Even worse is that these timeouts also happen precisely when runners are 
scarce, so the re-runs add load at the worst possible time and make the next 
timeout more likely.
   
   
   
   
   ### Expected behavior
   
   A PR whose checks are all passing, just slowly, should merge without anyone 
having to touch it again. CI work that has already passed for a queue entry 
should not be discarded and redone.
   
   ### Additional context
   
   - The queue's status check timeout is currently 60 minutes (the GitHub 
default); the evictions above all happened 60 to 80 minutes after the queue 
built the entry.
   - Related: #23400 (earlier queue evictions, closed),
   - #25088 (CI takes hours to start),
   - #25148 (reduce GitHub Actions usage)
   - #6880 (original merge queue discussion).
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to