Also that the price will keep on changing :D On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 at 16:15, Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote:
> 100% Agreed on it for sure. > > >Regarding Copilot billing, the lack of clarity on server-side costs is > concerning. > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 at 16:13, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Kaxil, >> >> Regarding Copilot billing, the lack of clarity on server-side costs is >> concerning. Given the recent surge in PR volume, there is a risk of >> uncontrollable expenses if hard caps aren't in place, similar to those on >> ASF CI. >> >> I agree that automated and assisted reviews are not mutually exclusive. I >> am interested to hear how others perceive this balance and what their >> experiences have been. >> >> Best, >> Jarek Potiuk >> >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 2:20 PM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Ignore the last para about links -- it is the copy/paste of what I had >> sent >> > to the new AI initiative ASF group/list where some of related >> discussions >> > were happening. >> > >> > On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 at 13:18, Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > The Copilot reviews as I had recently found out were paid for by our >> > > Astronomer's GitHub enterprise (for me and other folks at Astronomer >> from >> > > our quota). >> > > >> > > And with them moving to Usage-based model (which was bound to >> happen), it >> > > will get expensive. >> > > >> > > Although, I think it is still valuable for mass-reviewing on the >> server >> > > side since this happens on CI and is a complete opt-in by the reviewer >> > and >> > > there are no doubts. >> > > >> > > As I showed in the last dev call, I have my hand crafted review skill >> > that >> > > I use for detailed reviews from my laptop and that has been vetted by >> me >> > > before posting. So I am fully responsible for all the good and bad >> (false >> > > positive or hallucinations) things it catches since I approve it. And >> > have >> > > been using this skill for a good quarter or half a year (time flies). >> > > >> > > And that is why I do not feel it is either / OR -- meaning it was >> never >> > > Copilot review vs local review for me since I used both based on the >> > > purpose. For reviewing 200 PRs as last time, I used Copilot since a >> > review >> > > is helpful than no review, and PR getting marked stale and I have seen >> > > folks self-assign copilot review on their PRs -- for those who have >> > access >> > > to it. I have done the same to have multiple layers (even though my >> local >> > > review skill already does multi-modal reviews). >> > > >> > > And my philosophy around Review and a lot of workflow skills have >> been: >> > > What I look for in a PR isn't necessarily what someone else would look >> > for. >> > > Or what is important to me, might be nit for someone. So while as a >> > project >> > > we should have standards which go in AGENTS.md/Claude.md and or a >> > > high-level review skill that is checked-in the project, the "what I >> look >> > > for" will remain on my machine and is geared towards my preference, >> > testing >> > > etc. Time and again I'd use reviews from Ash and others to tune it -- >> > like >> > > I would do even without AI. As an example Ash would have caught >> something >> > > in my PR or someone else's PR that I wouldn't have realized, and like >> a >> > > human I'd learn for next time, so are my skills. But that is sort of >> my >> > new >> > > workflow adapting. >> > > >> > > re: fully automated Copilot reviews may discourage contributors who >> > expect >> > > human interaction >> > > >> > > At least to me, there is no difference between that and a review from >> a >> > > human which completely sounds AI/robotic anyway since a human can just >> > run >> > > a skill and post the response as well --- from a purely PR author >> > reception >> > > point of view. It is just coming from a different account, and the >> latter >> > > feels even worse as it is coming from a human account. But at the end >> of >> > > the day, that is still a personal preference. A review (from copilot, >> > from >> > > human that sounds like AI, a pure human review) that catches a bug is >> > still >> > > better than no review, PR going stale and being closed. >> > > >> > > Long story short: I do not think they are mutually exclusive -- or >> never >> > > were mutually exclusive :) >> > > >> > > ------ >> > > >> > > - https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/63775#discussion_r3025383633 >> -- >> > > Copilot caught a Databricks provider importing airflow.utils.timezone >> > > directly (which relies on Airflow's runtime deprecation redirect and >> > > silences typing) and suggested switching to >> > > airflow.providers.common.compat.sdk. That is our documented Airflow 2 >> / >> > > Airflow 3 cross-version pattern for providers. Copilot only knows this >> > > because we wrote it down. >> > > - https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62343#discussion_r3025380683 >> -- >> > > same cross-version import pattern, different provider. Author accepted >> > the >> > > suggestion. >> > > - https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/64568#discussion_r3025333917 >> -- >> > > Copilot flagged a fix for failure-callback context["exception"] >> handling >> > > and asked for a regression test specifically against the >> > > InProcessTestSupervisor / dag.test() path. That is the correct >> execution >> > > path for that change, not a generic "please add a test" remark. >> > > - >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/64576#pullrequestreview-4047787083 >> > -- >> > > Copilot reviewed a fix I authored for xcom_pull() ignoring default >> when >> > > map_indexes was not set, and raised a header-precedence >> > > question I had not thought about. >> > > - >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/61878#pullrequestreview-3851732779 >> > -- >> > > Dennis surfaced this one on the dev list as a real review he found >> useful >> > > on a provider PR. He's at a >> > > different company, so worth flagging as an independent signal. >> > > >> > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 at 11:02, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> Hi Kaxil and team, >> > >> >> > >> I’d like to discuss our strategy for "copilot reviews" versus SKILL >> > based >> > >> assisted triage and maintainer review experiences. >> > >> >> > >> My recent experiments with skill-based auto-triage show a downward >> trend >> > >> in >> > >> stale pull requests by filtering out "drive-by" contributions, >> allowing >> > >> maintainers to focus on high-impact work (more stats and trends >> soon). >> > >> Unlike 3rd-party tools, this approach is agent-agnostic, easily >> > fine-tuned >> > >> via English prompts, and potentially reusable across other ASF >> projects. >> > >> >> > >> Regarding transparency, I’ve proposed specific attribution formats >> [1] >> > to >> > >> distinguish between purely automated comments and those reviewed by >> > >> humans. >> > >> This aligns with ongoing [email protected] conversations [2] >> > about >> > >> using "Assisted By" instead of "Generated-by" to maintain >> accountability >> > >> and contributor motivation. >> > >> >> > >> I have concerns that fully automated Copilot reviews may discourage >> > >> contributors who expect human interaction. My experimental >> > >> /maintainer-review skill [3] allows maintainers to drive the process >> by >> > >> reviewing AI-generated comments before posting. This reduces "token >> > >> ping-pong," integrates with the CODEOWNERS discussion [4], and >> ensures >> > we >> > >> only spend tokens on relevant, triaged PRs. And keep maintainers >> > >> ultimately >> > >> responsible for comments they accept to send. >> > >> >> > >> With Copilot moving to usage-based billing on June 1 [5], using >> personal >> > >> or >> > >> open-source credits via the skill-based approach introduces some >> change >> > >> (but I am still unclear what it means to the billing - who pays for >> the >> > >> tokens). >> > >> >> > >> Conversely, for skill-based processes, it's entirely in the hands >> (and >> > >> pocket) of those who run the skill locally. We are also working with >> ASF >> > >> and Alpha-Omega to secure long-term resources for maintainers for >> that. >> > >> >> > >> I would love to hear your thoughts about it - especially Kaxil's >> > >> experiences regarding the Copilot review experiment - my observations >> > >> might >> > >> be incomplete and biased :). >> > >> >> > >> J. >> > >> >> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/65965 - comment >> attribution >> > >> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/qbdkky8ls6zybyy9o3pvqnpf68r089qp >> - >> > >> legal discussion thread on attributions >> > >> [3] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/65981 - >> /maintainer-review >> > >> skill >> > >> [4] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ssp4ksyohdzclxqvj7ngz0hz5wy9j68 >> - >> > >> CODEOWNERS discussion >> > >> [5] >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/github-copilot-is-moving-to-usage-based-billing/ >> > >> - change in billing for Copilot >> > >> >> > >> Best, >> > >> Jarek Potiuk >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
