Hey Russell, Thanks for driving this. Talking about making the security scanner happy: https://github.com/RussellSpitzer/iceberg/pull/5
JB, let me know if you need any help with the Avro release! Kind regards, Fokko Op vr 16 mei 2025 om 19:39 schreef Russell Spitzer < russell.spit...@gmail.com>: > Steven explained the Flink issue to me, Flink 2.0 isn't in 1.9.0 so not an > issue. > > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:20 PM Russell Spitzer < > russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ok so far of the lists proposed above I only picked 2 fixes that apply >> cleanly and (we double checked) >> actually apply to 1.9.0. Some of the fixes above need other commits >> which aren't in 1.9.0 so aren't an >> issue. If anyone else has any other issues let me know. >> >> The only one i'm not sure about is the Flink 2.0 Lock code, if someone >> with flink expertise can ping me I >> would appreciate it since I can't figure out how the patch applies to >> 1.9.0. >> >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13081 >> >> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> The new Avro release will content security improvement (and only this). >>> So even if not strictly required (as iceberg is not impacted), it would be >>> interesting to have security scanner happy ;) >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> Le mar. 13 mai 2025 à 23:24, Péter Váry <peter.vary.apa...@gmail.com> a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> Do we really want to include a new lib version in a maintenance >>>> release? In the past, we have seen issues when upgrading libs. Avro is very >>>> important, as it is used for metadata files. I would rather not include a >>>> new version, unless it is absolutely necessary. >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 13, 2025, 06:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
