+1 for the patch releases but have we created branch 1.11.x yet? Regards, Manu
On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 1:43 PM Tanmay Rauth <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for the patch releases. > > Thanks Amogh! > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:24 AM Prashant Singh <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>
