Thanks Kou, after ~2 weeks testing it I find it useful for non draft PRs, on the other hand, I think we should remove it for draft PRs.
When someone submits a draft PR usually means it's still not ready for review. Having Copilot adding comments for every commit feels like a waste of resources and in my opinion it generates clutter on the PR. El mié, 27 may 2026 a las 4:29, Gang Wu (<[email protected]>) escribió: > > I think GitHub Copilot is helpful at least for a preliminary review. > > On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 10:06 AM Sutou Kouhei <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for sharing your product! It may help us but can we > > try GitHub Compilot review as the first step? Because we can > > try it without asking INFRA. If we find that GitHub Copilot > > review helps us or GitHub Copilot review will help us if > > it's more clever, let's try your product! > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > kou > > > > In <cajpuwma336ffrdkqbvi9076yvr7cmy79nuy5zwn-ec_vgz2...@mail.gmail.com> > > "Re: [DISCUSS] Auto GitHub Copilot review" on Mon, 25 May 2026 16:43:19 > > -0500, > > Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Aside: I have been building a self-hosted AI code review system that I > > > think does a better job of finding bugs in PRs than Copilot does: > > > https://www.roborev.io/. You can install and try it locally to compare > > > its reviews with Copilot side-by-side (I recommend using codex + > > > gpt-5.5 for reviews). > > > > > > It might be tricky to get Infra to create a GitHub application > > > (https://www.roborev.io/integrations/github/), but it could be worth a > > > try. Reviews generally cost $0.20 - $2 (depending on the size of the > > > change) if you are paying API rates for GPT-5.5, it might not be a bad > > > use of sponsorship funds. > > > > > > On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 4:35 PM Sutou Kouhei <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> In apache/arrow, we don't have enough PR review resources > > >> for now. GitHub Copilot review may help this > > >> situation. GitHub Copilot and a PR author may fix trivial > > >> problems before human reviews. > > >> > > >> I'm trying GitHub Copilot review recently for this > > >> propose. For example: > > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49813 > > >> > > >> I start GitHub Copilot review manually for now. I received a > > >> feedback that the following workflow bothers a PR author: > > >> > > >> 1. PR author pushes > > >> 2. I trigger GitHub Copilot review half a day later because > > >> of timezone difference > > >> 3. PR author addresses review comments > > >> 4. 2. > > >> 5. 3. > > >> 6. ... > > >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49813#discussion_r3289753445 > > >> > > >> I thought that I may be able to improve this workflow by > > >> automating the 2. step. > > >> > > >> > > >> Recently, .asf.yaml added support for GitHub Copilot > > >> configuration: > > >> > > >> * https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml/pull/89 > > >> * https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml#copilot_code_review > > >> > > >> > > >> So I've enabled auto GitHub Copilot review: > > >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/50023 > > >> > > >> It may help us or bother us. Could you share your insights > > >> with GitHub Copilot review? I want to reduce maintenance > > >> cost. > > >> > > >> FYI: Here are some feedback from Alenka: > > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/50023#issuecomment-4535261566 > > >> > > >> We may improve GitHub Copilot auto review by adding custom > > >> instructions: > > >> https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/how-tos/copilot-on-github/customize-copilot/add-custom-instructions/add-repository-instructions > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> -- > > >> kou
