I'd rather we didn't get any "feature" sorts of things in like * Enable HTTP proxy support for the client used by REST Catalog #12406 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12406> * GCP: Support multiple storage credential prefixes #12881 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12881>
These seem like refactors (no-ops for end users) * Flink: Fix typo in JdbcLockFactory #12940 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12940> * Flink: Change Preconditions import from flink util to guava #12939 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12939> I think these are real bugs we should fix : * Core: Ensure reactivated view version uses correct timestamp #12821 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12821> * Flink: Add lockFactory open in LockRemover for table maintenance #12900 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12900> Low Priority : * Core: Broaden exception handling in writer clean up logic #12863 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12863> * Core: Disallow creation of invalid PartitionSpec #12887 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12887> * Core: Fix Kryo ser/de with StorageCredential config #12882 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12882> * Build, Core: Let RevAPI compare against 1.9.0 / Fix API breakage around StorageCredential #12930 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12930> // Is this a dangerous time to change this? We are only doing a point release The goal should be to just get in bug fixes for 1.9.0 For me the priority goes Highest - Regressions - anything breaking the previous release (1.8.x) Serious Bug Fixes - Correctness issues or major performance bugs Minor Bug Fixes - Typos/ build things --- Red Line New Functionality / parameters ect Lowest So I would avoid any "nice-to-have" items if we can and minimize the changeset. On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 12:22 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Kevin for the list! That looks good to me. Looking forward to > getting these fixes out! > > Yufei > > > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 10:19 AM Kevin Liu <kevinjq...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi Russell, >> >> I went through the commits since 1.9.x release, >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/compare/1.9.x...main >> >> Here are some possible candidates for 1.9.1 patch release, >> * Core: Fix Kryo ser/de with StorageCredential config #12882 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12882> >> * Core: Ensure reactivated view version uses correct timestamp #12821 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12821> >> * Flink: Add lockFactory open in LockRemover for table maintenance #12900 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12900> >> * Flink: Fix typo in JdbcLockFactory #12940 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12940> >> * Flink: Change Preconditions import from flink util to guava #12939 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12939> >> * Core: Broaden exception handling in writer clean up logic #12863 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12863> >> * Enable HTTP proxy support for the client used by REST Catalog #12406 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12406> >> * Core: Disallow creation of invalid PartitionSpec #12887 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12887> >> * GCP: Support multiple storage credential prefixes #12881 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12881> >> * Build, Core: Let RevAPI compare against 1.9.0 / Fix API breakage >> around StorageCredential #12930 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12930> >> >> IMO most of these are "nice to have" as part of 1.9.1. >> Let me know what you think! >> >> Best, >> Kevin Liu >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 9:41 AM Russell Spitzer < >> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I haven't gotten any other issues for 1.9.1 on the milestone and no one >>> has responded here. >>> I think it's important that we get a version of Iceberg out with a >>> working Version function >>> so I'll start a release today or tomorrow for a vote. >>> >>> On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 1:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Russ >>>> >>>> Yes, agree. Your PR is good and already merged. >>>> >>>> I don't have anything blocker for 1.9.1 (still working on source-ids, >>>> but definitely not for 1.9.1). >>>> >>>> Thanks ! >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 11:47 PM Russell Spitzer >>>> <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hey y'all! >>>> > >>>> > Thanks to @suilis we have learned that IcebergBuild.version() is >>>> returning unspecified for Iceberg 1.9.0. I have a PR up >>>> > to fix this and I think this is a clear reason to do a 1.9.1 as soon >>>> as possible. I know we have a few other issues that >>>> > may need to be fixed as well so let's make sure we get all those >>>> listed and I can do a release when they are ready. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Please respond if you have any concerns or you have any issues that >>>> need to go into a 1.9.1, >>>> > Russ >>>> >>>
