That shouldn't be included. There is still active discussion on the PR, and it needs more work. The author also removed the milestone. The VOTE is out, so we can start verifying.
Kind regards, Fokko Op ma 10 feb 2025 om 05:41 schreef Manu Zhang <owenzhang1...@gmail.com>: > There's still https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11216 under 1.8.0 > milestone. > Do we want to include it? > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 3:01 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > >>> >>> >> >
