Hey all, An update, the final License/Notice release blockers are merged (big thanks to JB, and Ryan/Fokko for helping review)! I'm in transit at the moment, but once I get to a place with stable wifi I will cut a release candidate.
Thanks, Amogh Jahagirdar On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 2:23 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >>> >> >
