Agreed, I wouldn't be opposed to looking into approaches to make release times more predictable. At the same time, I'd advocate that in the community, that anyone can propose a release at any point in time. Of course, we can discuss as a community and make sure there's a reasonable changeset, as well as focus review time on PRs which are close to being ready for that release. To some degree this contradicts having a predictable release schedule, but I feel like we can really just have a hybrid "Periodic release + arbitrary off-cycle release" approach and things won't get too crazy. It's a way to get the best of both frequency of release and user expectations on release times.
An update on 1.8 to the community, we're working on updating LICENSE/NOTICE files in the AWS/GCP/Azure bundles <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12095/>, thank you JB for driving that. It's something we need to get in for the release. Once that's in, I will cut the RC. Thanks, Amogh Jahagirdar On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 1:16 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > 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 > >>> >
