+1 for the patch releases. Thanks Amogh!
On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:24 AM Prashant Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for driving this Amogh ! > +1 for including preserving encryption metadata on DV merges to the patch > releases > > Best, > Prashant > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:07 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks folks, I've created a 1.10.3 milestone >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/65> and I also added this PR >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15911> from Manu for addressing >> preservation of encryption metadata for DV changes. It looks close, and I >> just had some final comments on it. I think it's appropriate to include for >> a 1.10.3 release because the issue can be considered simply producing >> incorrect V3 metadata. >> >> Thanks, >> Amogh Jahagirdar >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:49 AM Steve <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Amogh. >>> >>> This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the 1.10.2 >>> release. >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > +1 for patch releases. >>> > Thanks Amogh >>> > >>> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for the fix! >>> >> >>> >> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line. >>> >> >>> >> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture docker >>> image. We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I have a PR >>> for review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> Kevin Liu >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3. >>> >>> >>> >>> I reviewed the fix (#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 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 >>> >>
