Here's the PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12195 for ref.
Regards JB On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 5:48 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > 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 > >>> >>>
