Hi Amogh, I found issues in the LICENSE/NOTICE from kafka-connect-runtime distribution (what's in the distribution zip). AFAIR, we plan to distribute this distribution, so it should be fixed. I will open a PR about that today.
Sorry about that. Regards JB On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 11:35 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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, 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 >>> >>>
