[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.6.0 RC1

Hi everyone, this vote passed with the following result: +1 (binding): Daniel Weeks, Fokko Driesprong, Jack Ye +1 (non binding): Robert Stupp, Amogh Jahagirdar, Ajantha Bhat, Eduard Tudenhöfner, Dmitri Bourlatchkov, Steve Zhang, JB Onofré I will finalize the release, publishing the artifacts and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.6.0 RC1

+1 (non binding) I checked: - Signatures and checksums are OK - ASF header is present in all expected files - No binary file found in the source distribution - Build and tests are OK on the release tag - I run manual tests using JDBC Catalog and Spark Regards JB On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:37 AM J

Re: [Early Feedback] Variant and Subcolumnarization Support

I have been looking around, how can we map Variant type in Flink. I have not found any existing type which we could use, but Flink already have some JSON parsing capabilities [1] for string fields. So until we have native support in Flink for something similar to Vartiant type, I expect that we ne

Re: [DISCUSS][BYLAWS] Moving forward on the bylaws

My 2 cents on this topic. I think we are getting bogged down in relatively minor details/bureaucratic points. This is a reiteration of a previous recommendation on the topic, but in the interest of making progress here, I'd propose let's break this conversation down and focus on incremental definit

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 07:15 Ajantha Bhat wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:54 AM Yufei Gu wrote: > >> Hi Manu, >> >> If JDK 8 support is dropped in 2.0, will we continue to fix critical >>> issues in 1.6+? >>> >> Nothing stops people from cutting a release

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:54 AM Yufei Gu wrote: > Hi Manu, > > If JDK 8 support is dropped in 2.0, will we continue to fix critical >> issues in 1.6+? >> > Nothing stops people from cutting a release, and it becomes an official > release once it is approved. Here is the Apache R

Re: [Early Feedback] Variant and Subcolumnarization Support

Sorry for the late reply. I agree with the sentiments on 1 and 3 that have already been posted (adopt the Spark encoding, and only have the Variant type). As mentioned on the doc for 3, I think it would be good to specify how to map scalar types to a JSON representation so there can be consistenc

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

Hi Manu, If JDK 8 support is dropped in 2.0, will we continue to fix critical issues > in 1.6+? > Nothing stops people from cutting a release, and it becomes an official release once it is approved. Here is the Apache Release Policy for reference, https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html.

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:40 AM Szehon Ho wrote: > +1 for dropping JDK 8 in Iceberg 2.0. I also wonder the same thing as > Huaxin (sorry if I missed a previous thread on Iceberg 2.0 plan). > > Also as Huaxin has discovered in Spark 4.0 Support PR >

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 for dropping JDK 8 in Iceberg 2.0. I also wonder the same thing as Huaxin (sorry if I missed a previous thread on Iceberg 2.0 plan). Also as Huaxin has discovered in Spark 4.0 Support PR , looks like we may have to drop Java8 first in Spark 4.0 mod

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 (non-binding) I have a question about iceberg versioning. After the 1.6 release, will there be versions 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9, or will it go straight to 2.0? On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 5:32 PM Manu Zhang wrote: > If JDK 8 support is dropped in 2.0, will we continue to fix critical > issues in 1.6+?

Re: Building with JDK 21

Thanks Piotr for driving this, late +1 to add JDK 21 support and your plan for spotless. It seems ok to me too to bite the bullet and move to newer spotless (disabling spotless for JDK8 builds) post 1.6, but looks like the discussion happened and I'm fine either way. Thanks! Szehon On Mon, Jul 2

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.6.0 RC1

+1 non-binding Checked signature, SHA512 and license, built and ran tests against java 17 Thanks, Steve Zhang > On Jul 22, 2024, at 3:29 PM, Jack Ye wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > Checked signature, checksum, license > Ran unit and integration tests with JDK17 > Ran manual tests with Spark 3.5

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

If JDK 8 support is dropped in 2.0, will we continue to fix critical issues in 1.6+? On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 1:35 AM Jack Ye wrote: > +1 (binding), I did not expect this to be a vote thread, but overall +1 > for dropping JDK8 support. > > -Jack > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:30 AM Yufei Gu wrot

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.6.0 RC1

+1 (binding) Checked signature, checksum, license Ran unit and integration tests with JDK17 Ran manual tests with Spark 3.5 Best, Jack Ye On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:02 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote: > +1 (nb) > > Verified the REST Client warning about OAuth2 URL (again, just in case). > > Cheers

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.6.0 RC1

+1 (nb) Verified the REST Client warning about OAuth2 URL (again, just in case). Cheers, Dmitri. On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 2:39 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I propose that we release the following RC as the official Apache > Iceberg 1.6.0 release. > > The commit ID is 229d8f

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 (binding), I did not expect this to be a vote thread, but overall +1 for dropping JDK8 support. -Jack On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:30 AM Yufei Gu wrote: > +1(binding), as much as I want to drop JDK 8, still encourage everyone to > spark out about any concerns. > Yufei > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 202

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1(binding), as much as I want to drop JDK 8, still encourage everyone to spark out about any concerns. Yufei On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:24 AM Steven Wu wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 6:37 AM Piotr Findeisen > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> in the "Building with JDK 21" email thread

Re: Dropping JDK 8 support

+1 (binding) On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 6:37 AM Piotr Findeisen wrote: > Hi, > > in the "Building with JDK 21" email thread we discussed adding JDK 21 > support and also dropping JDK 8 support, as these things were initially > related. > A lot of people expressed acceptance for dropping JDK 8 suppo

Re: [DISCUSS][BYLAWS] Moving forward on the bylaws

Just to follow up on the other topics, here are my comments, mainly to reconcile with what have been discussed in different threads, which could help formulating these multiple-choice questions: > What should the minimum voting period be? Do we decide a minimum voting period for all topics, or do

Re: [DISCUSS] DROP PARTITION in Spark

Hi Walaa It makes sense, thanks for pointing the use case. I agree that it's better to consider a use-case specific impl. Regards JB On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:36 PM Walaa Eldin Moustafa wrote: > > Hi Jean, One use case is Hive to Iceberg migration, where DROP PARTITION does > not need to cha

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Merge table spec clarifications on time travel and equality deletes

Posted a similar comment in GH: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8982/files#r1686695087 On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:04 PM Micah Kornfield wrote: > Hi Dmitri, > Thank you for the comment, maybe we can continue the discussion on the PR > (there are still some other open issues). I don't think

Re: Building with JDK 21

Thanks Fokko. I like the idea. Started a new "Dropping JDK 8 support" thread to ensure transparency. Best Piotr On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 at 15:24, Fokko Driesprong wrote: > Thanks for summarizing this, Piotr. > > I believe having a separate thread on dropping Java 8 is the right thing > to do. We w

Dropping JDK 8 support

Hi, in the "Building with JDK 21" email thread we discussed adding JDK 21 support and also dropping JDK 8 support, as these things were initially related. A lot of people expressed acceptance for dropping JDK 8 support, and release 2.0 was proposed as a timeline. There were also concerned raised,

Re: Building with JDK 21

Thanks for summarizing this, Piotr. I believe having a separate thread on dropping Java 8 is the right thing to do. We want to be as transparent about these changes as possible. Kind regards, Fokko Driesprong Op ma 22 jul 2024 om 14:37 schreef Piotr Findeisen < piotr.findei...@gmail.com>: > Tha

Re: Building with JDK 21

Thanks for this lively discussion, it is great to see so many great people involved! We have unanimous agreement that we add support for JDK 21. Partial support (without spotless) will be added after 1.6.0 release is out (just not to mess up with the release). Full support (with spotless) will be

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.6.0 RC1

+1 (non-binding) - verified signatures / checksums / licenses - compiled and ran all tests using JDK17 Eduard On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 9:43 AM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > +1 (binding) > > - Validated checksums and signatures > - Checked licenses > - Compiled and ran the tests locally using

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.6.0 RC1

+1 (binding) - Validated checksums and signatures - Checked licenses - Compiled and ran the tests locally using JDK8 - Ran examples Kind regards, Fokko Op ma 22 jul 2024 om 07:05 schreef Ajantha Bhat : > +1 (non-binding) > > * validated checksum and signature > * checked license docs & ran RAT