+1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3. I reviewed the fix (#16699 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16699>): it's a contained, well-tested v3 correctness fix and a good candidate for both patches. I also agree we should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes to 1.10, since this helps the customers still on 1.10.
Thanks, Huaxin On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases. > > > Thanks > Aihua > > On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 > > I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy to > release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet. > > -Dan > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1. Thanks Amogh! >> >> Yufei >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases. >>> >>> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1 >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey folks, >>>> >>>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've encountered >>>> a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not carry over >>>> first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR >>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16699> out. >>>> >>>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including in >>>> these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically cover >>>> correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant regressions >>>> from the previous version. >>>> >>>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3 metadata >>>> correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I think since >>>> we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not >>>> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an >>>> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10. >>>> A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we should >>>> ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a >>>> patch version than a minor version upgrade. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Amogh Jahagirdar >>>> >>>
