Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 release

Hi Yuffei That makes sense to me. Do we have an ETA for this issue ? Are you working on a fix ? Do you need my help on this ? Thanks ! Regards JB On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 6:16 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > > Hi folks, > > We are working on a bug fix, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/11922. > It'

Re: [VOTE] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields as Appendix in Spec

The content looks correct to me, but because this states a requirement ("Metrics must be accurate if written") I would rather move this content into the section on the snapshot summary instead of an appendix. On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:30 PM huaxin gao wrote: > +1 non-binding > > On Tue, Jan 14,

Re: [DISCUSS] Use pr title + pr description as default git commit title + message in iceberg-rust

+1 non-binding. Thanks for bringing this up! I wasn’t aware that GitHub supports this option. I've often had to track down a commit and then go to its PR page to view more information. This change would make the process much more streamlined. I'd also like to propose enabling this for `iceberg-pyt

Re: [VOTE] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields as Appendix in Spec

+1 non-binding On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:21 PM Steve Zhang wrote: > +1 non-binding > > Thanks, > Steve Zhang > > > > On Jan 14, 2025, at 1:14 PM, Kevin Liu wrote: > > +1 non-binding. > > >

Re: [VOTE] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields as Appendix in Spec

+1 non-binding Thanks, Steve Zhang > On Jan 14, 2025, at 1:14 PM, Kevin Liu wrote: > > +1 non-binding.

Re: [VOTE] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields as Appendix in Spec

+1 Yufei On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:16 PM Kevin Liu wrote: > +1 non-binding. > Already +1 and reviewed the PR. Thanks for adding this! It's very useful > as a reference. > > Best, > Kevin Liu > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:05 PM Russell Spitzer < > russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >>

Re: [VOTE] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields as Appendix in Spec

+1 On Tue, Jan 14, 2025, 21:05 Russell Spitzer wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 2:00 PM Honah J. wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Based on good feedback on the [DISCUSS] thread >> . and >> the pull request >>

Re: [VOTE] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields as Appendix in Spec

+1 non-binding. Already +1 and reviewed the PR. Thanks for adding this! It's very useful as a reference. Best, Kevin Liu On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:05 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 2:00 PM Honah J. wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Based on good feedback on the [DISCU

Re: [VOTE] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields as Appendix in Spec

+1 On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 2:00 PM Honah J. wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Based on good feedback on the [DISCUSS] thread > . and > the pull request > . I > would lik

[VOTE] Document Snapshot Summary Optional Fields as Appendix in Spec

Hi everyone, Based on good feedback on the [DISCUSS] thread . and the pull request . I would like to raise a vote to add documentation of snapshot summary optional

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 release

Hi folks, We are working on a bug fix, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/11922. It'd be nice to include it in 1.7.2. Yufei On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 2:00 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Fokko > > Thanks for the update. I will do a quick pass on GH issues and I will > run the release

FileRewrite API refactor

Hi Team, There is ongoing work to bring Flink Table Maintenance to Iceberg [1]. We already merged the main infrastructure and are currently working on implementing the data file rewrite [2]. During the implementation we found that part of the compaction planning implemented for Spark compaction, c

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 release

Hi Fokko Thanks for the update. I will do a quick pass on GH issues and I will run the release (I will ping you on Slack). Regards JB On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 9:07 AM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > > Good morning everyone, > > Thanks for the replies so far. As I'm catching up from the holiday, I was

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 release

Good morning everyone, Thanks for the replies so far. As I'm catching up from the holiday, I was looking at #11895 to possibly include in 1.7.2, but Russell suggested a more fundamental rework which is better in the long run. Let's defer that to a lat