Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg (java) 1.8.0 release

Hi folks, Following the Community Meeting yesterday, I would like to propose the following plan regarding releases: 0. As a prerequisite to any release (1.7.2, 1.8.0, 1.9.0), as said by Ryan, we have to double check the NOTICE/LICENSE. Interestingly, I discussed this point with Fokko at the begin

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg (java) 1.8.0 release

Hey, IMHO 1.8 should definitely include the Auth-Manager work, which tackles actual bugs in the Iceberg code base wrt OAuth implementation. That work was originally intended to go into 1.7 and now it shall be delayed again for 1.9. The PR was originally opened in July 2024, about half a year

Re: [Discuss][Vote] Spec Change - Add optional field added-rows to Snapshot for Row Lineage

+1 On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 7:53 AM huaxin gao wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 10:51 PM Gang Wu wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 2:30 PM Péter Váry >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Steven Wu ezt írta (időpont: 2025. jan. 16., Cs, >>> 0:46): >>> +

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg (java) 1.8.0 release

Robert, I hear your frustration with the progress on the Auth Manager work, but I believe everyone recognizes that this was a large refactor further complicated by the need to preserve backward compatibility and handling deprecations appropriately. This work has gone through many iterations as we

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 release

Hey JB, Yufei approved the PR, and Amogh just merged it. I took the liberty of creating a backport: #11983 . Kind regards, Fokko Op wo 15 jan 2025 om 06:05 schreef Jean-Baptiste Onofré : > Hi Yuffei > > That makes sense to me. Do we have an ETA for

Re: [Discuss][Vote] Spec Change - Add optional field added-rows to Snapshot for Row Lineage

Thank you Russell! +1 (non-binding) Thanks, Steve Zhang > On Jan 15, 2025, at 10:53 PM, huaxin gao wrote: > > +1 (non-binding)

Re: [DISCUSS] Support keeping at most N snapshots

Hi all, Do you have more comments on this feature? Do you have concerns about adding a new field to SnapshotRef? Thanks, Manu On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 2:37 PM Manu Zhang wrote: > Hi Ajantha, > > `history.expire.min-snapshots-to-keep` is the *minimum number of > snapshots* we can keep. I'm propos

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.7.2 release

Awesome ! Thanks Fokko ! Le jeu. 16 janv. 2025 à 19:48, Fokko Driesprong a écrit : > Hey JB, > > Yufei approved the PR, and Amogh just merged it. I took the liberty of > creating a backport: #11983 > . > > Kind regards, > Fokko > > Op wo 15 jan 2025

Re: [Discuss][Vote] Spec Change - Add optional field added-rows to Snapshot for Row Lineage

+1, thanks Russel! this will help other engines as well. Thanks, Manish On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 3:15 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm +0. I definitely agree with the premise that we need a spec change to > ensure added rows exist at the snapshot level for row lineage, but I f

Re: [Discuss][Vote] Spec Change - Add optional field added-rows to Snapshot for Row Lineage

+1 Best, Honah On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 22:54 Manish Malhotra < manish.malhotra.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1, thanks Russel! > this will help other engines as well. > > > Thanks, > Manish > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 3:15 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm +0. I definitely agree

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

+1 Thanks, Honah! On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 3:38 PM Honah J. wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Thank you for your votes and valuable suggestions. I have updated the PR > to remove the statement, "Metrics must be accurate if written," and have > relocated the relevant documentation to Appendix F - Impleme

Re: [DISCUSS] Support keeping at most N snapshots

It makes sense to have an option to control the max number of snapshots. Thanks Manu for the proposal. Yufei On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 7:46 PM Manu Zhang wrote: > Hi all, > > Do you have more comments on this feature? Do you have concerns about > adding a new field to SnapshotRef? > > Thanks, >

Re: [Discuss][Vote] Spec Change - Add optional field added-rows to Snapshot for Row Lineage

+1 (non-binding) ! Best, Prashant Singh On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 1:14 PM Daniel Weeks wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 10:39 AM Steve Zhang > wrote: > >> Thank you Russell! +1 (non-binding) >> >> Thanks, >> Steve Zhang >> >> >> >> On Jan 15, 2025, at 10:53 PM, huaxin gao wrote: >> >> +1

Re: [Discuss][Vote] Spec Change - Add optional field added-rows to Snapshot for Row Lineage

+1 On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 10:39 AM Steve Zhang wrote: > Thank you Russell! +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks, > Steve Zhang > > > > On Jan 15, 2025, at 10:53 PM, huaxin gao wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > >

Re: [Discuss][Vote] Spec Change - Add optional field added-rows to Snapshot for Row Lineage

I'm +0. I definitely agree with the premise that we need a spec change to ensure added rows exist at the snapshot level for row lineage, but I feel like there is an advantage to just formalizing the added-records snapshot summary property, and make it required for writers in case row lineage is ena

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

Hi everyone, Thank you for your votes and valuable suggestions. I have updated the PR to remove the statement, "Metrics must be accurate if written," and have relocated the relevant documentation to Appendix F - Implementation Notes. Updated PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11660 Given