Thanks for driving this Amogh !
+1 for including preserving encryption metadata on DV merges to the patch
releases

Best,
Prashant

On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:07 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks folks, I've created a 1.10.3 milestone
> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/65> and I also added this PR
> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15911> from Manu for addressing
> preservation of encryption metadata for DV changes. It looks close, and I
> just had some final comments on it. I think it's appropriate to include for
> a 1.10.3 release because the issue can be considered simply producing
> incorrect V3 metadata.
>
> Thanks,
> Amogh Jahagirdar
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:49 AM Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Amogh.
>>
>> This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the 1.10.2
>> release.
>>  +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 for patch releases.
>> > Thanks Amogh
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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): 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 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
>>
>

Reply via email to