As it's not a "regression" (it was like this in 1.9.0 even if not "seen"), I'm fine to continue with the 1.9.1 release. We probably need to work on a better/complete fix.
I'm not sure reverting this change would make sense either. I'm more in favor of continuing the 1.9.1 vote. Regards JB On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 6:25 PM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As a heads up, this change is already present in 1.9.0. We could hold off on > 1.9.1 until we have a change that reverts the behavior in 1.9.0. I think that > would be fine as long as we have a volunteer to work on it, I would be > interested in just releasing 1.9.1 and then doing a 1.9.2 unless we are sure > the fix/revert would be quick. > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 12:14 PM Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I think we should address the problem that Aihua pointed out. Even if we can >> technically say that we are following the spec, this is a behavior change >> that is known to break with existing REST catalog services. I don't think >> that we should release a version that is known to break with existing >> services that were based on the previous Iceberg version. >> >> I suggest that we implement a fix to handle multiple snapshot IDs for this >> release so that services can upgrade to 1.9 and then update clients in the >> next release. >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:03 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Aihua and Ajantha who pointed this out, >>> >>> If I understand the issue correctly, I don't think I consider it as an >>> incompatible change. The REST protocol always allowed for clients to remove >>> snapshots in bulk, it's just that we had a limitation in the reference >>> implementation that the batch size is 1. I'm guessing the failure that's >>> being seen on the server side is the assertion that the bulk size is 1 >>> which is no longer the case from newer clients? >>> >>> So in this case, newer clients are trying to express deletions with larger >>> sizes and the server is unable to handle it due to the assertion in the >>> older implementation, not because the protocol changed. Though I can see >>> the grey area in that it either forces clients to not upgrade for Java >>> server implementations which haven't upgraded OR it server implementations >>> end up upgrading, but this still feels implementation specific and not tied >>> to the protocol compatibility. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:29 AM Aihua Xu <aihu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have verified RC against Snowflake build. Everything works except one >>>> issue introduced by https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12670/ : the >>>> client with 1.9.x can't work with the catalog server with old library to >>>> remove the snapshots since the the client now will remove the snapshots in >>>> bulk while the old server doesn't support. Let me know if it's considered >>>> an incompatible change. Otherwise, it looks good to me. >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 4:58 AM Péter Váry <peter.vary.apa...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 (binding) >>>>> Verified signature, built, and run some tests >>>>> >>>>> Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2025. máj. 19., >>>>> H, 11:17): >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Verified the archive checksum and signature >>>>>> 2. Extracted and inspected the source code for binaries >>>>>> 3. Compiled and tested the source code >>>>>> 4. Verified license files / headers >>>>>> >>>>>> -Max >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 6:52 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > +1 (binding) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Verified sigs/sums/license/build/test >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Checked that the iceberg build version is correctly represented. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Ran into the hadoop commit test timeouts, but succeeded on re-attempt >>>>>> > (I believe we have fixes upstream for this). >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -Dan >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> +1 (binding) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Checked signature, checksum, and licenses. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Also ran Flink 1.20 with SQL. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Thanks Russel for driving the release! >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 2:27 PM huaxin gao <huaxin.ga...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>> >>> Verified signature, checksum and license. Thanks Russell for driving >>>>>> >>> this release! >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Huaxin >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 2:03 PM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> >>>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Checked signature, checksum, and licenses. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Thanks Russell, for running this release! >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>> Fokko >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Op zo 18 mei 2025 om 01:05 schreef Yuya Ebihara >>>>>> >>>> <yuya.ebih...@starburstdata.com>: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Confirmed that Trino and Starburst CI are green. >>>>>> >>>>> It runs tests against several catalogs, including HMS, Glue, JDBC >>>>>> >>>>> (PostgreSQL), REST (Polaris, Unity, S3 Tables, Tabular), Nessie, >>>>>> >>>>> and Snowflake. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> BR, >>>>>> >>>>> Yuya >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 2:13 AM Kevin Liu <kevinjq...@apache.org> >>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Verified signature, checksum, license. >>>>>> >>>>>> * Build + test passed using Java 17 on M1 >>>>>> >>>>>> * Ran a few examples on Spark >>>>>> >>>>>> * Ran pyiceberg integration tests >>>>>> >>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/pull/2011) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Kevin Liu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 10:02 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>>>> >>>>>> <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry I meant +1 (non binding) >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Le sam. 17 mai 2025 à 08:10, Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>>>> >>>>>>> <j...@nanthrax.net> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> +0 (non binding) >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Signature and checksum are good >>>>>> >>>>>>>> - ASF header present in expected file >>>>>> >>>>>>>> - No binary found in the source distribution >>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Build is OK >>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Tested with spark and flink, need some update on Polaris >>>>>> >>>>>>>> - The aws-bundle, azure-bundle, gcp-bundle, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> kafka-connect-runtime >>>>>> >>>>>>>> LICENSE should include content for MIT and BSD (inline or >>>>>> >>>>>>>> dedicated >>>>>> >>>>>>>> folder), also, in case of dual license, we should "exclusively" >>>>>> >>>>>>>> select >>>>>> >>>>>>>> one. I gonna fix that, as it's like this for a while (I missed >>>>>> >>>>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>>>> before), it can be fixed in next release. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>>>> JB >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 11:32 PM Russell Spitzer >>>>>> >>>>>>>> <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Hi Y'all, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > I propose that we release the following RC as the official >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Apache Iceberg 1.9.1 release. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > The commit ID is 5541cf000084b9e139d8dd22db44db7f592c3a2d >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > * This corresponds to the tag: apache-iceberg-1.9.1-rc0 >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/commits/apache-iceberg-1.9.1-rc0 >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/tree/5541cf000084b9e139d8dd22db44db7f592c3a2d >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > The release tarball, signature, and checksums are here: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/iceberg/apache-iceberg-1.9.1-rc0 >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > You can find the KEYS file here: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > * https://downloads.apache.org/iceberg/KEYS >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Convenience binary artifacts are staged on Nexus. The Maven >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > repository URL is: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheiceberg-1201/ >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Please download, verify, and test. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Please vote in the next 72 hours. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > [ ] +1 Release this as Apache Iceberg 1.9.1 >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > [ ] +0 >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > [ ] -1 Do not release this because... >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Only PMC members have binding votes, but other community >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > members are encouraged to cast >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > non-binding votes. This vote will pass if there are 3 binding >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > +1 votes and more binding >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > +1 votes than -1 votes. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >
