Thanks Amogh I updated the PR with some cleanups.
Regards JB On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 4:04 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks JB I left a review, it'll be good to get another set of eyes on it! > Thank you for surfacing and fixing these issues, it's very appreciated. > > Amogh Jahagirdar > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 12:50 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: >> >> 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 >> > >>> >>>
