Thanks for addressing that fix, Matt! The PR is still open for review, ptal.
I noticed that some PRs are tagged under the 1.10.3 milestone [1], while others are tagged under 1.11.1 [2]. Since a PR can only be assigned to a single milestone, I think we’ll need to backport all of those PRs to both 1.10.x and 1.11.x. Is that right? [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/65 [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63 On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 8:16 AM Matt Butrovich <[email protected]> wrote: > After several rounds of helpful revision, this PR > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15470> to fix manifest delete > file size after table rewrite is green and ready for another pass. I > believe this would be a backport candidate for both 1.10.x and 1.11.x. > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:35 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I also went ahead and added this PR >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16692> to the 1.10.3 milestone >> (and of course also applies to 1.11.1), I do think this is an important >> correctness fix for default value handling and evaluation against parquet >> metrics. The 1.11.x branch was created last week. >> >> Thanks, >> Amogh Jahagirdar >> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:36 AM Manu Zhang <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>
