Thanks for the clarification, Amogh! Much appreciated! Would you mind adding these PRs to the 1.9 milestone, please?
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11992 https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11995 Thanks, Dmitri. On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 7:07 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, > > Just following up here with a bit of a status update, so in the past week > or so, items in the 1.8 release milestone > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/50> have been closing out. > I'm aiming to cut a release next Tuesday, Jan 28. > > I'd like to reiterate that for any changes that don't make the 1.8 > release, we can do a fast follow 1.9 release, and from the last community > sync that seems to be the direction. > In this particular case, the 1.8 release is a bit earlier than our typical > release cadence and with the 1.9 being a fast follow on, I think we're well > on track. > Please add the proposed changes to the 1.9 milestone > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/53> so folks can review > ahead of time! > > In general, I'd encourage more frequent releases, changes which are ready > can just go out and with the smaller diff it reduces the risks that exist > with larger updates. > > Thanks, > Amogh Jahagirdar > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 10:05 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Robert, >> >> I hear your frustration with the progress on the Auth Manager work, but I >> believe everyone recognizes that this was a large refactor further >> complicated by the need to preserve backward compatibility and handling >> deprecations appropriately. This work has gone through many iterations as >> we explored how to make the changes cleanly. Eventually the scale of the >> change led to breaking up the PR for closer review, which I believe was the >> right decision because we identified multiple issues after taking that >> step. That may have slowed down progress, but a lot of hours have gone >> into discussing, reviewing, and validating the work in this area. >> >> As a project, we have leaned away from gating releases on specific >> features because it leads to slower release cycles and prevents other >> features that are ready from going out. We also don't want to rush >> features just to hit a release target, but rather release more frequently >> to make changes available as they are ready. >> >> At this point, I believe the plan is to follow up soon with a 1.9 release. >> >> -Dan >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 2:36 AM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: >> >>> Hey, >>> >>> IMHO 1.8 should definitely include the Auth-Manager work, which tackles >>> actual bugs in the Iceberg code base wrt OAuth implementation. That work >>> was originally intended to go into 1.7 and now it shall be delayed again >>> for 1.9. The PR was originally opened in July 2024, about half a year >>> ago and is still getting reviewed. In the meantime there were more than >>> 600 other PRs that got reviewed and merged. >>> >>> The overall agreement around spring 2024, please correct me if I am >>> wrong, was the whole REST/OAuth area needs to be improved, and the oauth >>> endpoint removed entirely. >>> >>> Generally speaking, and I know I'm not alone, getting reviews from >>> Iceberg committers is extremely hard. A lot of issues and PRs just get >>> closed (by that stale bot) without having gotten _any_ attention from an >>> Iceberg committer. This is not a new situation but going on for a long >>> time. I have been talking to two Iceberg PMC members in person many >>> months ago that this is a very disappointing situation that needs to be >>> fixed. The reply was always "we are already working on it" - but at >>> least from my personal POV the situation did not improve. >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> On 16.01.25 10:56, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >>> > Hi folks, >>> > >>> > Following the Community Meeting yesterday, I would like to propose the >>> > following plan regarding releases: >>> > >>> > 0. As a prerequisite to any release (1.7.2, 1.8.0, 1.9.0), as said by >>> > Ryan, we have to double check the NOTICE/LICENSE. Interestingly, I >>> > discussed this point with Fokko at the beginning of this week, because >>> > I have some doubts about LICENSE/NOTICE content in the "uber" jar >>> > artifacts where we shade dependencies. I'm doing a complete pass on >>> > all artifacts in 1.7.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT. I should have a >>> > complete analysis by tomorrow. This is potentially a blocker for >>> > release votes. >>> > >>> > 1. As soon as (0) is done, 1.7.2 can be submitted to vote. I will work >>> > with Fokko on this one. >>> > >>> > 2. We plan to do 1.8.0 in a couple of weeks (Amogh is the release >>> > manager). Due to still some WIP, we "revisited" the 1.8.0 release >>> > content: for instance, as best effort, we wanted to include REST Auth >>> > Manager improvement (OAuth2 Manager) but we preferred to postpone to >>> > 1.9.0. That's totally fine to me, however, I would propose to strongly >>> > focus on pending PRs for 1.9.0. Imho, we should "target" (again as >>> > clear best effort) on variant, partition stats and Auth Manager. >>> > >>> > 3. Assuming 1.8.0 will be released at the end of Jan/beginning of Feb, >>> > according to our "release cadence", what do you think about planning >>> > 1.9.0 in April ? Again with the main targets listed in (2). >>> > >>> > I tried to sum up what we discussed yesterday :) >>> > Thoughts ? >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > JB >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 7:51 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >>> wrote: >>> >> Hi folks, >>> >> >>> >> We did Apache Iceberg 1.7.0 release on Nov 8, 2024. If we want to keep >>> >> our release "pace", 1.8.0 should be released around mid February. >>> >> >>> >> I think we already have a good "train" of merged PRs (or should be >>> >> merged soon): default values, REST auth improvements, dependencies >>> >> updates, etc. >>> >> >>> >> WDYT about 1.8.0 mid Feb ? If so, I propose we update GitHub Issues >>> >> and PRs we would like to "target" to 1.8.0. >>> >> >>> >> Thoughts ? >>> >> >>> >> Regards >>> >> JB >>> >>> -- >>> Robert Stupp >>> @snazy >>> >>>
