apache/iceberg - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Apache Iceberg

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 67/100

External PR Merge Rate: 43%

Response Time: -

First Timer Success: 41%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is apache/iceberg welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

apache/iceberg has a recorded first-timer success rate of 40.9%. Repositories ranked A typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

Maintainers in apache/iceberg respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 0.0 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 66.7 C-Rank™ score (A Tier) represent?

The C-Rank™ system evaluates GitHub projects on a 0–100 scale using real data: PR merge rates, review turnaround time, active maintainer presence, and first-time contributor success. A score of 66.7 places apache/iceberg in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for apache/iceberg?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for apache/iceberg is 43.4%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in apache/iceberg?

apache/iceberg currently has 6 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

apache
apache/icebergA•Welcoming9.3k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
apache

apache/iceberg

9,333
Active (30d)A•Welcoming(67/100)Java

Apache Iceberg

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Constructive Code Reviewer

Warmth Score
7.4/10
Patience Score
7.8/10
Nitpick Rate
33%

Balanced & professional review environment in apache/iceberg. Maintains strict focus on technical quality and test standards.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • •Add unit tests with >80% coverage for modified code paths
  • •Run repository linter and code formatters locally before pushing
  • •Link relevant GitHub issue ID in PR description pre-flight checklist

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • •Do not submit unlinked PRs without referencing an existing issue
  • •Do not mix refactoring and feature logic into a single commit
  • •Do not ping maintainers repeatedly within 24 hours of opening
Response Velocity
-
No reviewer activity recorded

Average Response Latency

Tracks hours until a maintainer leaves a review, comment, or PR response.

Merge Efficiency
43.4%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
40.9%
Accepts new contributor PRs

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
208 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
43.4%
Merge Gauge
40.9%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe30/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

Show contributors that your repository actively reviews and merges external pull requests.

GetMerged C-Rank badge for apache/iceberg
[![GetMerged C-Rank](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/api/badge/apache/iceberg)](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/apache/iceberg?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Problem The map comparison helpers decode both keys and values with the map key type: Object actualKey = actualKeys.get(i, convert(keyType)); Object actualValue = actualValues.get(i, convert(keyType)); The value must be decoded with convert(valueType). When the key and value types differ, the current assertions may decode the value incorrectly and do not validate what they appear to validate. PR #14984 fixes GenericsHelpers for Spark 4.2 and will also fix the duplicate in Spark 4.2 TestHelpers. The same issue remains in both helpers for: spark/v3.5 spark/v4.0 spark/v4.1 Proposed fix Update the remaining six occurrences to use: Object actualValue = actualValues.get(i, convert(valueType)); Add or confirm coverage using a map whose key and value have different Spark types. Context Identified while reviewing Spark 4.2 support in #14984: #14984 (comment)

📅 Opened Aug 19, 2026💬 4 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

This issue was reported to the private Apache Iceberg security mailing list. The submitter is being kept anonymous because the report was sent to a private list. After review, the issue is not considered a serious vulnerability that needs to be kept private, so it is being filed publicly here for tracking and resolution. Note: this submission was generated by AI. Please review its claims and source references carefully before acting on them. Summary Spark scopes file_list_view with raw string prefix matching, letting sibling paths fall inside orphan cleanup. Affected Maven coordinates versioned integration artifacts: org.apache.iceberg:iceberg-spark-3.4_*, org.apache.iceberg:iceberg-spark-3.5_*, org.apache.iceberg:iceberg-spark-4.0_2.13, org.apache.iceberg:iceberg-spark-4.1_2.13 Attacker prerequisites control over a path, prefix, batch, or file list that sits adjacent to a legitimately scoped prefix ability to trigger the credential-selection or cleanup path with that crafted input

📅 Opened May 20, 2026💬 9 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute

Methods marked with @deprecated ... will be removed in 1.12.0 needs to be removed now since 1.11.0 is released.

📅 Opened May 20, 2026💬 9 comments
Quality: 65/100Contribute

Feature Request / Improvement Description RewriteTablePathUtil.rewriteDVFile currently rewrites deletion vector (DV) Puffin files by reading all rewritten blobs into an in-memory list before writing them out, which can create unnecessary memory pressure when rewriting larger DV files or files with many blobs. Suggested improvement Refactor RewriteTablePathUtil.rewriteDVFile to stream rewritten blobs directly to the output PuffinWriter while iterating through the source blobs, instead of collecting all rewritten blobs into a temporary list first. Query engine None Willingness to contribute I can contribute this improvement/feature independently I would be willing to contribute this improvement/feature with guidance from the Iceberg community I cannot contribute this improvement/feature at this time

📅 Opened Apr 9, 2026💬 3 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute

Feature Request / Improvement After #15288, Spark Writing to Branches doc (docs/docs/spark-writes.md) no longer matches that in codes. * <p>The target branch can be specified via table identifier, write option, or in SQL: * * <ul> * <li>The identifier and option branches can't conflict. If both are set, they must match. * <li>Identifier and option branches take priority over the session WAP branch. * <li>If neither the option nor the identifier branch is set and WAP is enabled for this table, * use the WAP branch from the session SQL config. * </ul> * * <p>Note: WAP ID and WAP branch cannot be set at the same time. * * <p>Note: The target branch may be created during the write operation if it does not exist. Query engine Spark Willingness to contribute I can contribute this improvement/feature independently I would be willing to contribute this improvement/feature with guidance from the Iceberg community I cannot contribute this impr

📅 Opened Apr 9, 2026💬 5 comments
Quality: 80/100Contribute
Looking for more Java beginner tasks?Explore Java GFI

Contributor Community Vibe Feedback

Rate what actually matters after opening a pull request here.

Have you contributed to this repo?

Rate your first-hand PR experience (review speed, maintainer responsiveness, and onboarding ease) to help other contributors.

3 ratings required
Maintainer helpfulness
Review speed
Beginner friendliness

Contributor Compatibility & Review Speed Analysis for apache/iceberg

When evaluating whether to contribute to apache/iceberg, response velocity and maintainer engagement are crucial. GetMerged continuously tracks pull request trajectories, first-comment latency, and code review rounds to help developers avoid submitting pull requests to backlogged repositories.

Currently, maintainers of apache/iceberg acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 43.4% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to apache/iceberg

01

Is apache/iceberg welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

apache/iceberg has a recorded first-timer success rate of 40.9%. Repositories ranked Welcoming typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

02

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

The initial maintainer response time averages ~-. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 66.7 C-Rank™ score represent?

The C-Rank™ index scores repositories on a 0 to 100 scale using an objective formula: external PR merge rates, initial response speed, active maintainer count, and first-time contributor retention. A score of 66.7 places apache/iceberg in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for apache/iceberg?

The external pull request merge rate is 43.4%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.

05

Are there beginner Good First Issues open in apache/iceberg?

Yes, apache/iceberg currently has 6 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.

GetMerged C-Rank™ Indexing Standard

All metrics displayed for apache/iceberg are automatically retrieved via the public GitHub API and recalculated daily. Insider pull requests submitted by repository owners or organization members are excluded from merge rate calculations to preserve objective external contributor statistics.