Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

Hi Thank you Jarek for taking care of this matter! > Should we react and block new users from interacting with Airflow repo if we see it happening again? Maintainers' time is not an infinite resource, so "yes!" from me (also for Iceberg). Best On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 15:40, Russell Spitzer

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

Hi, everyone: The infra team has enabled this setting, and I've verified them manually. On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:42 AM Renjie Liu wrote: > Thanks everyone for joining the discussion, I'll submit a jira ticket to > enable it for iceberg-rust, iceberg-cpp, iceberg-go, and pyiceberg. > > On Mon,

Re: [DISCUSS, VOTE] OpenAPI Metadata Update for EnableRowLineage

+1, thanks Russell! Best regards, Honah On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 6:49 PM Renjie Liu wrote: > +1, thanks Russell for driving this! > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 8:12 AM Russell Spitzer > wrote: > >> That was a bit of what we discussed at the sync this morning. Whether we >> should have a generic e

Re: [DISCUSS, VOTE] OpenAPI Metadata Update for EnableRowLineage

+1, thanks Russell for driving this! On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 8:12 AM Russell Spitzer wrote: > That was a bit of what we discussed at the sync this morning. Whether we > should have a generic enable feature update for one way features that we > don’t have the ability to disable. We couldn’t come

Re: [DISCUSS, VOTE] OpenAPI Metadata Update for EnableRowLineage

That was a bit of what we discussed at the sync this morning. Whether we should have a generic enable feature update for one way features that we don’t have the ability to disable. We couldn’t come up with more examples of features we actually wanted to add. I think I’d we have at least two more it

Re: [DISCUSS, VOTE] OpenAPI Metadata Update for EnableRowLineage

Just a minor question added to the PR. We're adding an explicit 'enable' as an update type and I wonder if it would be better to generalize it so that we don't have separate updates to disable/enable (more forward thinking as this is the first case quite like this). -Dan On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 a

Re: [DISCUSS, VOTE] OpenAPI Metadata Update for EnableRowLineage

+1 Thanks Russell On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 4:50 PM rdb...@gmail.com wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:51 PM Russell Spitzer > wrote: > >> Hey Y'all >> >> Yet another Row Lineage Spec update. This adds a MetadataUpdate >> EnableRowLineage to the REST Spec. We briefly talked today >> about

Re: [DISCUSS, VOTE] OpenAPI Metadata Update for EnableRowLineage

+1 On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:51 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > Hey Y'all > > Yet another Row Lineage Spec update. This adds a MetadataUpdate > EnableRowLineage to the REST Spec. We briefly talked today > about an alternative EnableFeature(Feature Name) API instead but in the > absence of other feat

[DISCUSS, VOTE] OpenAPI Metadata Update for EnableRowLineage

Hey Y'all Yet another Row Lineage Spec update. This adds a MetadataUpdate EnableRowLineage to the REST Spec. We briefly talked today about an alternative EnableFeature(Feature Name) API instead but in the absence of other features it doesn't seem like that's really a requirement now. I agreed tha

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding RemoveSchemasUpdate update type to REST spec

Thanks Gabor for starting this thread, I'm +1 on adding the RemoveSchemasUpdate to the REST Spec! I think it's an important step in maintaining metadata to ensure that it's as small as possible. Thanks, Amogh Jahagirdar On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:34 AM Gabor Kaszab wrote: > Hi Iceberg Community

Iceberg Community Meeting Notes - Jan 15 2025

Hey Y'all! Here are the notes and recording for the Jan 15th meeting! Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZLWQSZvLIw Notes - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YuGhUdukLP5gGiqCbk0A5_Wifqe2CZWgOd3TbhY3UQg/edit?tab=t.0 Notes : --- - Highlights - Java - Hive

Re: [VOTE] REST API changes for freshness-aware table loading

+1. Thanks, Gabor! A bit more context, we synced on this spec change during this morning's community catalog meeting and reached a general consensus on the approach. Yufei On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 12:05 PM Gabor Kaszab wrote: > Hi Iceberg Community, > > I have a PR for changing the REST spec >

[VOTE] REST API changes for freshness-aware table loading

Hi Iceberg Community, I have a PR for changing the REST spec as part of the freshness-aware table loading proposal. I feel that the spec part is something that the participants have agreed on so I think this is the time to start a vote. Links: PR fo

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

+1 non-binding. On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 7:57 AM Kevin Liu wrote: > +1 non-binding > > Third time's the charm! :) > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 4:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > >> +1 (non binding) >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 9:19 PM Honah J. wrote: >> > >> > Hi everyo

[discuss] Standardizing Naming Schemes for Language-Specific Configurations

Hi everyone, I’d like to open a discussion on the naming scheme for configuration parameters across different languages. While working on the LocationProvider implementation in PyIceberg (#1452 ), we encountered a challenge with naming configura

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

+1 non-binding Third time's the charm! :) On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 4:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 (non binding) > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 9:19 PM Honah J. wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > In the last VOTE thread on documenting snapshot summary optional fields, >

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

This is pretty disturbing and I hope that any users out there see that using automated tools to submit issues is just adding noise to the project which makes it very hard for real issues to be addressed. On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 6:58 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > - Iceberg dev to not flood them :) (i

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

- Iceberg dev to not flood them :) (in bcc:) It looks like the flood had been somehow flood-gated - no similar report for the last 4 hours or so. I also started to receive confirmation from Github that they are looking at the reports, so likely we do not have to do any action now, but I think we

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

+1 (non binding) Regards JB On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 9:19 PM Honah J. wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > In the last VOTE thread on documenting snapshot summary optional fields, we > decided to move the documentation to a subsection of Appendix F – > Implementation Notes. Since this is a significant c

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

+1 On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 9:46 AM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > +1 > > Op wo 22 jan 2025 om 08:21 schreef Péter Váry >: > >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025, 06:06 huaxin gao wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 6:04 PM Manu Zhang >>> wrote: >>> +1 (non-binding)

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

+1 from me. It looks started yesterday, I feel we may get many of these tickets when new users starts testing those AI agents. Regards, Pavan Kumar On Wed, Jan 22, 2025, 10:27 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > We continue getting new issues - and more of them are by "new users" - > created just an hour or

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

We continue getting new issues - and more of them are by "new users" - created just an hour or so ago. Apparently Github has a way to temporarily limit interactions with the repo for new users - see this screenshot: https://ibb.co/WWsr7RB And I think I'd be for enabling it - we will need an INFR

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

Another one who also opened issues in Airflow and Iceberg https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/12034 https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45920 Same "mistake" with the # Title. All of these seem to come with accounts opened months ago, with some minor traffic to their own forks so they wou

[DISCUSS] Adding RemoveSchemasUpdate update type to REST spec

Hi Iceberg Community, There has been a PR merged recently that enhances "expire snapshots" to drop the unused partition specs. I myself started working now on a very similar PR just for dropping the unused schemas. As per this change I have a PR to ex

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

Yeah. just closed this one. The pattern where those are coming at the same time as two unrelated issues to both iceberg and airflow are very. strange On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:35 AM Elad Kalif wrote: > Another one who also opened issues in Airflow and Iceberg > https://github.com/apache/ic

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

Yeah. Again - my guess is that those are "Agentic AI" trials, where someone is deploying fake "agent" accounts acting as "people in the repo would". That's a bit terrifying if this is not contained. On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 9:52 AM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > That's quite a few! I also noticed that

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

That's quite a few! I also noticed that they sometimes self-close the issue (eg here ). Closed after 1 minute, but still flooding my mailbox :D So you might have more such issues now than you think. Yes, that's probably the case, still going throug

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

Example case: * https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45904 - airflow * https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/12034 - iceberg Both issues are generic and useless and bring 0 value except noise. Interesting thing is that many of those users, if you look at their history - created. similar

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

+1 Op wo 22 jan 2025 om 08:21 schreef Péter Váry : > +1 > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025, 06:06 huaxin gao wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 6:04 PM Manu Zhang >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> Thanks & Regards >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 8:06 AM Daniel Weeks wrote

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

I have not counted all of them. there are quite a bit too many - and other people closed some of them as well. I got a very rudimentary check and applied "AI Spam" label to some of the issues https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aclosed%20AI%20label%3A%22AI%20Spam%22. -> s

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

Hey Jarek, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. When you talk about flooding, how many are we talking about? I see some suspicious issues (eg, here ), but not many. I hope this will come to a halt soon because it all additional work, and we als

Fwd: Very strange (AI generated) issues

Hey Iceberg community, And Airflow community too. As of yesterday Airflow repo is literally flooded with a number of issues that look almost good, except they are clearly AI generated and make no sense or repeat content from other issues. We noticed that the users who create a lot of the "spam AI"

Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues

I also forwarded it to `users@infra` - so that the infra people are aware of it. On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 9:00 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Hey Iceberg community, And Airflow community too. > > As of yesterday Airflow repo is literally flooded with a number of issues > that look almost good, except t