Thanks JB I left a review, it'll be good to get another set of eyes on it! Thank you for surfacing and fixing these issues, it's very appreciated.
Amogh Jahagirdar On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 12:50 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Here's the PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12195 for ref. > > Regards > JB > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 5:48 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > > Hi Amogh, > > > > I found issues in the LICENSE/NOTICE from kafka-connect-runtime > > distribution (what's in the distribution zip). AFAIR, we plan to > > distribute this distribution, so it should be fixed. > > I will open a PR about that today. > > > > Sorry about that. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 11:35 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > An update, the final License/Notice release blockers are merged (big > thanks to JB, and Ryan/Fokko for helping review)! I'm in transit at the > moment, but once I get to a place with stable wifi I will cut a release > candidate. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Amogh Jahagirdar > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 2:23 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Agreed, I wouldn't be opposed to looking into approaches to make > release times more predictable. At the same time, I'd advocate that in the > community, that anyone can propose a release at any point in time. Of > course, we can discuss as a community and make sure there's a reasonable > changeset, as well as focus review time on PRs which are close to being > ready for that release. > > >> To some degree this contradicts having a predictable release > schedule, but I feel like we can really just have a hybrid "Periodic > release + arbitrary off-cycle release" approach and things won't get too > crazy. It's a way to get the best of both frequency of release and user > expectations on release times. > > >> > > >> An update on 1.8 to the community, we're working on updating > LICENSE/NOTICE files in the AWS/GCP/Azure bundles, thank you JB for driving > that. It's something we need to get in for the release. Once that's in, I > will cut the RC. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Amogh Jahagirdar > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 1:16 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi Amogh, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks ! > > >>> > > >>> I agree we should have more frequent releases, but also more > > >>> "predictable" release time and give visibility to the community > > >>> (especially users). > > >>> Some ASF projects are providing "tables" with release plans: > > >>> - https://camel.apache.org/download/ > > >>> - https://karaf.apache.org/download.html > > >>> - https://activemq.apache.org/components/classic/download/ > > >>> - ... > > >>> > > >>> Maybe we can provide something similar ? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks ! > > >>> Regards > > >>> JB > > >>> > > >>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 1:07 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > Hey all, > > >>> > > > >>> > Just following up here with a bit of a status update, so in the > past week or so, items in the 1.8 release milestone have been closing out. > > >>> > I'm aiming to cut a release next Tuesday, Jan 28. > > >>> > > > >>> > I'd like to reiterate that for any changes that don't make the 1.8 > release, we can do a fast follow 1.9 release, and from the last community > sync that seems to be the direction. > > >>> > In this particular case, the 1.8 release is a bit earlier than our > typical release cadence and with the 1.9 being a fast follow on, I think > we're well on track. > > >>> > Please add the proposed changes to the 1.9 milestone so folks can > review ahead of time! > > >>> > > > >>> > In general, I'd encourage more frequent releases, changes which > are ready can just go out and with the smaller diff it reduces the risks > that exist with larger updates. > > >>> > > > >>> > Thanks, > > >>> > Amogh Jahagirdar > > >>> > > > >>> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 10:05 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Robert, > > >>> >> > > >>> >> I hear your frustration with the progress on the Auth Manager > work, but I believe everyone recognizes that this was a large refactor > further complicated by the need to preserve backward compatibility and > handling deprecations appropriately. This work has gone through many > iterations as we explored how to make the changes cleanly. Eventually the > scale of the change led to breaking up the PR for closer review, which I > believe was the right decision because we identified multiple issues after > taking that step. That may have slowed down progress, but a lot of hours > have gone into discussing, reviewing, and validating the work in this area. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> As a project, we have leaned away from gating releases on > specific features because it leads to slower release cycles and prevents > other features that are ready from going out. We also don't want to rush > features just to hit a release target, but rather release more frequently > to make changes available as they are ready. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> At this point, I believe the plan is to follow up soon with a 1.9 > release. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> -Dan > > >>> >> > > >>> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 2:36 AM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> > wrote: > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> Hey, > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> IMHO 1.8 should definitely include the Auth-Manager work, which > tackles > > >>> >>> actual bugs in the Iceberg code base wrt OAuth implementation. > That work > > >>> >>> was originally intended to go into 1.7 and now it shall be > delayed again > > >>> >>> for 1.9. The PR was originally opened in July 2024, about half a > year > > >>> >>> ago and is still getting reviewed. In the meantime there were > more than > > >>> >>> 600 other PRs that got reviewed and merged. > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> The overall agreement around spring 2024, please correct me if I > am > > >>> >>> wrong, was the whole REST/OAuth area needs to be improved, and > the oauth > > >>> >>> endpoint removed entirely. > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> Generally speaking, and I know I'm not alone, getting reviews > from > > >>> >>> Iceberg committers is extremely hard. A lot of issues and PRs > just get > > >>> >>> closed (by that stale bot) without having gotten _any_ attention > from an > > >>> >>> Iceberg committer. This is not a new situation but going on for > a long > > >>> >>> time. I have been talking to two Iceberg PMC members in person > many > > >>> >>> months ago that this is a very disappointing situation that > needs to be > > >>> >>> fixed. The reply was always "we are already working on it" - but > at > > >>> >>> least from my personal POV the situation did not improve. > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> Robert > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> On 16.01.25 10:56, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > >>> >>> > Hi folks, > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > Following the Community Meeting yesterday, I would like to > propose the > > >>> >>> > following plan regarding releases: > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > 0. As a prerequisite to any release (1.7.2, 1.8.0, 1.9.0), as > said by > > >>> >>> > Ryan, we have to double check the NOTICE/LICENSE. > Interestingly, I > > >>> >>> > discussed this point with Fokko at the beginning of this week, > because > > >>> >>> > I have some doubts about LICENSE/NOTICE content in the "uber" > jar > > >>> >>> > artifacts where we shade dependencies. I'm doing a complete > pass on > > >>> >>> > all artifacts in 1.7.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT. I should > have a > > >>> >>> > complete analysis by tomorrow. This is potentially a blocker > for > > >>> >>> > release votes. > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > 1. As soon as (0) is done, 1.7.2 can be submitted to vote. I > will work > > >>> >>> > with Fokko on this one. > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > 2. We plan to do 1.8.0 in a couple of weeks (Amogh is the > release > > >>> >>> > manager). Due to still some WIP, we "revisited" the 1.8.0 > release > > >>> >>> > content: for instance, as best effort, we wanted to include > REST Auth > > >>> >>> > Manager improvement (OAuth2 Manager) but we preferred to > postpone to > > >>> >>> > 1.9.0. That's totally fine to me, however, I would propose to > strongly > > >>> >>> > focus on pending PRs for 1.9.0. Imho, we should "target" > (again as > > >>> >>> > clear best effort) on variant, partition stats and Auth > Manager. > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > 3. Assuming 1.8.0 will be released at the end of Jan/beginning > of Feb, > > >>> >>> > according to our "release cadence", what do you think about > planning > > >>> >>> > 1.9.0 in April ? Again with the main targets listed in (2). > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > I tried to sum up what we discussed yesterday :) > > >>> >>> > Thoughts ? > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > Regards > > >>> >>> > JB > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 7:51 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > >>> >>> >> Hi folks, > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> We did Apache Iceberg 1.7.0 release on Nov 8, 2024. If we > want to keep > > >>> >>> >> our release "pace", 1.8.0 should be released around mid > February. > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> I think we already have a good "train" of merged PRs (or > should be > > >>> >>> >> merged soon): default values, REST auth improvements, > dependencies > > >>> >>> >> updates, etc. > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> WDYT about 1.8.0 mid Feb ? If so, I propose we update GitHub > Issues > > >>> >>> >> and PRs we would like to "target" to 1.8.0. > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> Thoughts ? > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> Regards > > >>> >>> >> JB > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> -- > > >>> >>> Robert Stupp > > >>> >>> @snazy > > >>> >>> >
