Ok, seems like we are in agreement to deprecate 3.1. I’ll fire a PR shortly.
Does anyone want to go through changes in 3.3 and 3.2 and find what we missed to cherry-pick so that we have that list in one place (e.g. create an issue)? Any thoughts on how to mark changes as candidates for cherry-picking? Creating an issue? - Anton > On Apr 24, 2023, at 10:01 AM, Edgar Rodriguez > <edgar.rodrig...@airbnb.com.INVALID> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Thanks for the discussion. Similarly to Manu, we're in Spark 3.1.1 and > Iceberg 1.1.0 - we backport Spark 3.1.1 fixes internally as well. It's a bit > more complicated to move fast on Spark versions internally, mainly due to the > number of scala customers that we have. > > I understand maintaining yet another Spark version is burdensome so I'm +1 on > marking 3.1 deprecated, and I'd be happy to contribute on backports if needed > on a community maintained branch, we'd just need to tag changes that may need > a backport. > > Cheers, > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 4:40 PM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io > <mailto:b...@tabular.io>> wrote: > Thank you for stepping up and offering to help, Manu. I'm glad that you're > willing to help with backports. > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 2:05 AM Manu Zhang <owenzhang1...@gmail.com > <mailto:owenzhang1...@gmail.com>> wrote: > You would just end up backporting twice. > > That's why I said a community maintained branch benefits us, saving one > backport. Note the first backport is more difficult, sometimes requiring > rewriting the PR since there would be API differences between Spark versions. > The second backport will be much easier if we focus on bug fixes. Meanwhile, > it's also easier for us to upgrade to Iceberg 1.2+ if 3.1 support is still > available although deprecated. > > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Tabular > > > -- > Edgar R
