I forgot Peter! I'm so sorry!
That should have been
+1: 4 (binding), 5 (non-binding). {Russell, Steven Wu, Fokko, Peter} |
{JB, Karuppayya, Kevin, Huaxin, Aihua}
+0: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding)
-1: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding)
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 4:29 PM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks everyone who participated in the vote for Release Apache Iceberg
> 1.9.1 RC1.
>
> The vote result is:
>
> +1: 3 (binding), 5 (non-binding). {Russell, Steven Wu, Fokko} | {JB,
> Karuppayya, Kevin, Huaxin, Aihua}
> +0: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding)
> -1: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding)
>
> Therefore, the release candidate is passed.
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 1:28 PM Aihua Xu <aihu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding).
>>
>> Verified against Snowflake engine.
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 9:28 AM huaxin gao <huaxin.ga...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>> Verified signature, checksum, license and ran some tests.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 9:06 AM Russell Spitzer <
>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For all those who haven't seen this before, GPG key signing is a very
>>>> "early hacker" sort of thing. The idea is the only way to trust a signature
>>>> is to
>>>> have it signed by someone that you also trust. This builds a network of
>>>> trust so you could essentially do something like say I trust that key X is
>>>> Russell
>>>> and therefore trust that Key Y signed by Key X is also trusted to be
>>>> whoever they say they are because you trust Russell and his key. I don't
>>>> think folks do
>>>> this all that often any more but never fear, our current process is not
>>>> "completely" anonymous.
>>>>
>>>> When you download the KEYS file from SVN you are downloading what is
>>>> essentially a list of Public Keys and Identities that is updated only by
>>>> folks
>>>> with valid Apache SVN credentials so there is a bit of security there.
>>>>
>>>> All of that to say, yes that key is mine and if you trust that this
>>>> email comes from me, you can trust that key is also me. If you don't trust
>>>> this email ...
>>>> send me a message and I can 1 on 1 verify with you on video (although
>>>> with AI who knows) that I am Russell and that is my key. I'll be in SF in
>>>> person next week for Snowflake Summit if anyone wants in person
>>>> validation :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:38 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Kevin Liu
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 7:59 AM karuppayya <karuppayya1...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When verifying
>>>>>> <https://iceberg.apache.org/how-to-release/#verifying-signatures>
>>>>>> signatures. I got a warning. Am I missing something with the gpg
>>>>>> configuration?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-iceberg-1.9.1.tar.gz'
>>>>>> gpg: Signature made Wed May 21 15:19:17 2025 PDT
>>>>>> gpg: using RSA key xxx
>>>>>> gpg: Good signature from "Russell Spitzer (CODE SIGNING KEY)
>>>>>> <russellspit...@apache.org>" [unknown]
>>>>>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>>>>>> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
>>>>>> owner.
>>>>>> Primary key fingerprint: x
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Verified checksums, local build and ran basic tests on Spark 3.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the warning is ok to ignore,
>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Karuppayya
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 7:29 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 (non binding)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I checked:
>>>>>>> * source distribution
>>>>>>> ** checksum and signature are good
>>>>>>> ** LICENSE and NOTICE look good
>>>>>>> ** No binary file found in the source distribution
>>>>>>> ** Header looks good in files
>>>>>>> ** Build works from the source distribution
>>>>>>> ** Tested with Spark and Polaris
>>>>>>> * in the bundled jar files:
>>>>>>> ** aws-bundle jar contains correct LICENSE/NOTICE
>>>>>>> ** azure-bundle jar contains LICENSE/NOTICE, nit: Azure MIT license
>>>>>>> content should be part of the LICENSE (inline). I will fix that.
>>>>>>> ** gcp-bundle jar contains LICENSE/NOTICE, nit: Google BSD 3-Clause
>>>>>>> license content should be part of the LICENSE (inline), and some
>>>>>>> dependencies have dual licenses, only one should be "selected" in
>>>>>>> Iceberg (exclusive). I will fix that.
>>>>>>> ** kafka-runtime (main and hive) contains LICENSE/NOTICE, nit: same
>>>>>>> issue as in azure-bundle and gcp-bundle about exclusive license and
>>>>>>> MIT/BSD license content
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 1:19 AM 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 f40208ae6fb2f33e578c2637d3dea1db18739f31
>>>>>>> > * This corresponds to the tag: apache-iceberg-1.9.1-rc1
>>>>>>> > *
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/commits/apache-iceberg-1.9.1-rc1
>>>>>>> > *
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/tree/f40208ae6fb2f33e578c2637d3dea1db18739f31
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > The release tarball, signature, and checksums are here:
>>>>>>> > *
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/iceberg/apache-iceberg-1.9.1-rc1
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > 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-1202/
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > ---
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > For those watching the big change between this and RC0 was the
>>>>>>> reversion of code which
>>>>>>> > caused the rest client to emit multiple Snapshot Removals Requests
>>>>>>> in the same MetadataUpdate.
>>>>>>> > This restores the behavior to that of 1.8.X, 1 removal per update.
>>>>>>> > We plan to move to the new behavior in a later release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
