Thanks for the fix! +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture docker image. We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I have a PR for review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214 Best, Kevin Liu On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3. > > I reviewed the fix (#16699 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16699>): > it's a contained, well-tested v3 correctness fix and a good candidate for > both patches. I also agree we should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes > to 1.10, since this helps the customers still on 1.10. > > Thanks, > > Huaxin > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases. >> >> >> Thanks >> Aihua >> >> On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> +1 >> >> I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy to >> release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet. >> >> -Dan >> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1. Thanks Amogh! >>> >>> Yufei >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases. >>>> >>>> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1 >>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey folks, >>>>> >>>>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've >>>>> encountered a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not >>>>> carry over first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16699> out. >>>>> >>>>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including in >>>>> these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically >>>>> cover >>>>> correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant regressions >>>>> from the previous version. >>>>> >>>>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3 metadata >>>>> correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I think since >>>>> we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not >>>>> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an >>>>> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10. >>>>> A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we >>>>> should >>>>> ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a >>>>> patch version than a minor version upgrade. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Amogh Jahagirdar >>>>> >>>>
