https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10745 should not be bound to 1.8.0 either?
Regards, Manu On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 4:36 PM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> wrote: > That shouldn't be included. There is still active discussion on the PR, > and it needs more work. The author also removed the milestone. The VOTE is > out, so we can start verifying. > > Kind regards, > Fokko > > Op ma 10 feb 2025 om 05:41 schreef Manu Zhang <owenzhang1...@gmail.com>: > >> There's still https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11216 under 1.8.0 >> milestone. >> Do we want to include it? >> >> On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 3:01 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Amogh >>> >>> I updated the PR with some cleanups. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 4:04 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > 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 >>> >> > >>> >>> >>> >>
