Steven explained the Flink issue to me, Flink 2.0 isn't in 1.9.0 so not an issue.
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:20 PM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok so far of the lists proposed above I only picked 2 fixes that apply > cleanly and (we double checked) > actually apply to 1.9.0. Some of the fixes above need other commits which > aren't in 1.9.0 so aren't an > issue. If anyone else has any other issues let me know. > > The only one i'm not sure about is the Flink 2.0 Lock code, if someone > with flink expertise can ping me I > would appreciate it since I can't figure out how the patch applies to > 1.9.0. > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13081 > > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> The new Avro release will content security improvement (and only this). >> So even if not strictly required (as iceberg is not impacted), it would be >> interesting to have security scanner happy ;) >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> Le mar. 13 mai 2025 à 23:24, Péter Váry <peter.vary.apa...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> >>> Do we really want to include a new lib version in a maintenance release? >>> In the past, we have seen issues when upgrading libs. Avro is very >>> important, as it is used for metadata files. I would rather not include a >>> new version, unless it is absolutely necessary. >>> >>> On Tue, May 13, 2025, 06:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I did a fix/improvement on Avro. I will propose to do new Avro >>>> releases. >>>> Maybe worth to include in Iceberg 1.9.1 if the timing is ok. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>> Le lun. 12 mai 2025 à 20:03, Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> >>>> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
