Kevin, thanks for checking that. I will take a look at your backport PRs. Can you add them to the 1.10.0 milestone?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 12:27 PM Kevin Liu <kevinjq...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks again for driving this Steven! We're very close!! > > As mentioned in the community sync today, I wanted to verify feature > parity between Spark 3.5 and Spark 4.0 for this release. > I was able to verify that Spark 3.5 and Spark 4.0 have feature parity for > this upcoming release. More details in the other devlist thread > https://lists.apache.org/thread/7x7xcm3y87y81c4grq4nn9gdjd4jm05f > > Thanks, > Kevin Liu > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 12:17 PM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Another update on the release. >> >> The existing blocker PRs are almost done. >> >> During today's community sync, we identified the following issues/PRs to >> be included in the 1.10.0 release. >> >> 1. backport of PR 13100 to the main branch. I have created a cherry-pick >> PR <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13647> for that. There is >> a one line difference compared to the original PR due to the removal of >> the >> deprecated RemoveSnapshot class in main branch for 1.10.0 target. Amogh >> has >> suggested using RemoveSnapshots with a single snapshot id, which should be >> supported by all REST catalog servers. >> 2. Flink compaction doesn't support row lineage. Fail the compaction >> for V3 tables. I created a PR >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13646> for that. Will >> backport after it is merged. >> 3. Spark: fix data frame join based on different versions of the same >> table that may lead to weird results. Anton is working on a fix. It >> requires a small behavior change (table state may be stale up to refresh >> interval). Hence it is better to include it in the 1.10.0 release where >> Spark 4.0 is first supported. >> 4. Variant support in core and Spark 4.0. Ryan thinks this is very >> close and will prioritize the review. >> >> Thanks, >> steven >> >> The 1.10.0 milestone can be found here. >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/54 >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 9:15 AM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Ajantha/Robin, thanks for the note. We can include the PR in the 1.10.0 >>> milestone. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 3:20 AM Robin Moffatt <ro...@confluent.io.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Ajantha. Just to confirm, from a Confluent point of view, we >>>> will not be able to publish the connector on Confluent Hub until this >>>> CVE[1] is fixed. >>>> Since we would not publish a snapshot build, if the fix doesn't make it >>>> into 1.10 then we'd have to wait for 1.11 (or a dot release of 1.10) to be >>>> able to include the connector on Confluent Hub. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Robin. >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10745#issuecomment-3074300861 >>>> >>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 at 04:03, Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have approached Confluent people >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10745#issuecomment-3058281281> >>>>> to help us publish the OSS Kafka Connect Iceberg sink plugin. >>>>> It seems we have a CVE from dependency that blocks us from publishing >>>>> the plugin. >>>>> >>>>> Please include the below PR for 1.10.0 release which fixes that. >>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13561 >>>>> >>>>> - Ajantha >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 10:48 AM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> > Engines may model operations as deleting/inserting rows or as >>>>>> modifications to rows that preserve row ids. >>>>>> >>>>>> Manu, I agree this sentence probably lacks some context. The first >>>>>> half (as deleting/inserting rows) is probably about the row lineage >>>>>> handling with equality deletes, which is described in another place. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Row lineage does not track lineage for rows updated via Equality >>>>>> Deletes <https://iceberg.apache.org/spec/#equality-delete-files>, >>>>>> because engines using equality deletes avoid reading existing data before >>>>>> writing changes and can't provide the original row ID for the new rows. >>>>>> These updates are always treated as if the existing row was completely >>>>>> removed and a unique new row was added." >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 5:49 PM Manu Zhang <owenzhang1...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Steven, I missed that part but the following sentence is a >>>>>>> bit hard to understand (maybe just me) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Engines may model operations as deleting/inserting rows or as >>>>>>> modifications to rows that preserve row ids. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please help to explain? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com>于2025年7月15日 周二04:41写道： >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Manu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The spec already covers the row lineage carry over (for replace) >>>>>>>> https://iceberg.apache.org/spec/#row-lineage >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "When an existing row is moved to a different data file for any >>>>>>>> reason, writers should write _row_id and >>>>>>>> _last_updated_sequence_number according to the following rules:" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 1:38 PM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> another update on the release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have one open PR left for the 1.10.0 milestone >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/54> (with 25 closed >>>>>>>>> PRs). Amogh is actively working on the last blocker PR. >>>>>>>>> Spark 4.0: Preserve row lineage information on compaction >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13555> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I will publish a release candidate after the above blocker is >>>>>>>>> merged and backported. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 11:56 PM Manu Zhang < >>>>>>>>> owenzhang1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Amogh, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is it defined in the table spec that "replace" operation should >>>>>>>>>> carry over existing lineage info insteading of assigning new IDs? If >>>>>>>>>> not, >>>>>>>>>> we'd better firstly define it in spec because all engines and >>>>>>>>>> implementations need to follow it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 11:44 AM Amogh Jahagirdar < >>>>>>>>>> 2am...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One other area I think we need to make sure works with row >>>>>>>>>>> lineage before release is data file compaction. At the moment, >>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/main/spark/v3.5/spark/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/spark/actions/SparkBinPackFileRewriteRunner.java#L44> >>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>> looks like compaction will read the records from the data files >>>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>> projecting the lineage fields. What this means is that on write of >>>>>>>>>>> the new >>>>>>>>>>> compacted data files we'd be losing the lineage information. >>>>>>>>>>> There's no >>>>>>>>>>> data change in a compaction but we do need to make sure the lineage >>>>>>>>>>> info >>>>>>>>>>> from carried over records is materialized in the newly compacted >>>>>>>>>>> files so >>>>>>>>>>> they don't get new IDs or inherit the new file sequence number. I'm >>>>>>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>>>> on addressing this as well, but I'd call this out as a blocker as >>>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Robin Moffatt* >>>> *Sr. Principal Advisor, Streaming Data Technologies* >>>> >>>
