-1 (non-binding)
For testing the release I plugged in the latest RC2 in Trino and found out
that we have regression: https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/15079/files
It throws this exception:
java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: hash(value) is not supported on
the base Bucket class
at o
+1 (non-binding)
- validated checksum and signature
- checked license docs & ran RAT checks
- ran build and tests with JDK11
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 11:30 AM Gabor Kaszab
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I propose that we release the following RC as the official Apache Iceberg
> 1.1.0 relea
@Szehon:
This failure looks to be the same as #6060.
I did report two flaky tests 3 weeks ago. But we didn't investigate it I
guess.
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/6060
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/5986
Thanks,
Ajantha
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:09 PM Szehon Ho wrote:
> +1
+1 (non-binding)
1. Verify signature
2. Verify checksum
3. License RAT check
4. Run unit test, Actually got a failure:
org.apache.iceberg.spark.extensions.TestCopyOnWriteDelete >
testDeleteWithSnapshotIsolation[catalogName = spark_catalog, implementation
= org.apache.iceberg.spark.SparkSessionCa
Hi guys,
This is to bring up a discussion on the feature proposed in
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/5631. Thanks Ryan Blue for pointing
out the concerns!
As mentioned in the issue thread, the ability to describe a NestedField in
detail is required by ML and other scenarios. We can su
Hi Everyone,
I propose that we release the following RC as the official Apache
Iceberg 1.1.0 release.
The commit ID is b3eaf0c6cb9cf6357a925c7443baadd54515a971
* This corresponds to the tag: apache-iceberg-1.1.0-rc2
* https://github.com/apache/iceberg/commits/apache-iceberg-1.1.0-rc2
*
https://g
Let me close this vote and start another one for a new RC.
Gabor
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 9:35 AM Gabor Kaszab
wrote:
> I'm in favour of creating a new RC.
>
> Gabor
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 6:22 PM Ryan Blue wrote:
>
>> Since there were test failures, what about a new RC? I also merged #618
I'm in favour of creating a new RC.
Gabor
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 6:22 PM Ryan Blue wrote:
> Since there were test failures, what about a new RC? I also merged #6187
> that removes a duplicate feature that we would have to support forever
> otherwise.
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 9:09 AM Steven
