Hi Amogh,

Thanks !

I agree we should have more frequent releases, but also more
"predictable" release time and give visibility to the community
(especially users).
Some ASF projects are providing "tables" with release plans:
- https://camel.apache.org/download/
- https://karaf.apache.org/download.html
- https://activemq.apache.org/components/classic/download/
- ...

Maybe we can provide something similar ?

Thanks !
Regards
JB

On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 1:07 AM 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 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 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
>>>

Reply via email to