Hi I did a fix/improvement on Avro. I will propose to do new Avro releases. Maybe worth to include in Iceberg 1.9.1 if the timing is ok.
Regards JB Le lun. 12 mai 2025 à 20:03, Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> a écrit : > I'd rather we didn't get any "feature" sorts of things in like > * Enable HTTP proxy support for the client used by REST Catalog #12406 > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12406> > * GCP: Support multiple storage credential prefixes #12881 > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12881> > > These seem like refactors (no-ops for end users) > * Flink: Fix typo in JdbcLockFactory #12940 > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12940> > * Flink: Change Preconditions import from flink util to guava #12939 > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12939> > > > I think these are real bugs we should fix : > * Core: Ensure reactivated view version uses correct timestamp #12821 > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12821> > * Flink: Add lockFactory open in LockRemover for table maintenance #12900 > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12900> > > Low Priority : > * Core: Broaden exception handling in writer clean up logic #12863 > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12863> > * Core: Disallow creation of invalid PartitionSpec #12887 > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12887> > * Core: Fix Kryo ser/de with StorageCredential config #12882 > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12882> > * Build, Core: Let RevAPI compare against 1.9.0 / Fix API breakage around > StorageCredential #12930 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12930> // > Is this a dangerous time to change this? We are only doing a point release > > > The goal should be to just get in bug fixes for 1.9.0 > > For me the priority goes > Highest - > Regressions - anything breaking the previous release (1.8.x) > Serious Bug Fixes - Correctness issues or major performance bugs > Minor Bug Fixes - Typos/ build things > --- Red Line > New Functionality / parameters ect > Lowest > > So I would avoid any "nice-to-have" items if we can and minimize the > changeset. > > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 12:22 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Kevin for the list! That looks good to me. Looking forward to >> getting these fixes out! >> >> Yufei >> >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 10:19 AM Kevin Liu <kevinjq...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Russell, >>> >>> I went through the commits since 1.9.x release, >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/compare/1.9.x...main >>> >>> Here are some possible candidates for 1.9.1 patch release, >>> * Core: Fix Kryo ser/de with StorageCredential config #12882 >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12882> >>> * Core: Ensure reactivated view version uses correct timestamp #12821 >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12821> >>> * Flink: Add lockFactory open in LockRemover for table maintenance >>> #12900 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12900> >>> * Flink: Fix typo in JdbcLockFactory #12940 >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12940> >>> * Flink: Change Preconditions import from flink util to guava #12939 >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12939> >>> * Core: Broaden exception handling in writer clean up logic #12863 >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12863> >>> * Enable HTTP proxy support for the client used by REST Catalog #12406 >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12406> >>> * Core: Disallow creation of invalid PartitionSpec #12887 >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12887> >>> * GCP: Support multiple storage credential prefixes #12881 >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12881> >>> * Build, Core: Let RevAPI compare against 1.9.0 / Fix API breakage >>> around StorageCredential #12930 >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12930> >>> >>> IMO most of these are "nice to have" as part of 1.9.1. >>> Let me know what you think! >>> >>> Best, >>> Kevin Liu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 9:41 AM Russell Spitzer < >>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I haven't gotten any other issues for 1.9.1 on the milestone and no one >>>> has responded here. >>>> I think it's important that we get a version of Iceberg out with a >>>> working Version function >>>> so I'll start a release today or tomorrow for a vote. >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 1:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Russ >>>>> >>>>> Yes, agree. Your PR is good and already merged. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have anything blocker for 1.9.1 (still working on source-ids, >>>>> but definitely not for 1.9.1). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks ! >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 11:47 PM Russell Spitzer >>>>> <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hey y'all! >>>>> > >>>>> > Thanks to @suilis we have learned that IcebergBuild.version() is >>>>> returning unspecified for Iceberg 1.9.0. I have a PR up >>>>> > to fix this and I think this is a clear reason to do a 1.9.1 as soon >>>>> as possible. I know we have a few other issues that >>>>> > may need to be fixed as well so let's make sure we get all those >>>>> listed and I can do a release when they are ready. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Please respond if you have any concerns or you have any issues that >>>>> need to go into a 1.9.1, >>>>> > Russ >>>>> >>>>
