No, I don't think that's bound to a version anyway, as Amogh pointed out on the issue. I've removed it from the milestone. Thanks
Kind regards, Fokko Op ma 10 feb 2025 om 11:20 schreef Manu Zhang <owenzhang1...@gmail.com>: > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10745 should not be bound to > 1.8.0 either? > > Regards, > Manu > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 4:36 PM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >> > >>> >>> >>>> >>>
