Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.4.2 RC0

+1 (non binding) I checked: - hash and signature are good - ASF headers are still missing on some files (.baseline, etc): it has been fixed on main but not cherry picked on 1.4.x branch - still puffin binary files in the source distribution (I will work on a fix about that) - build ok from source

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.4.2

Hi Amogh It sounds good to me. I just saw that you already started the release vote. It's a bit short to discuss in this thread, especially during the weekend :) Since it's a regression, you did well to start the vote. We can always do a 1.4.3 including other fixes if needed. Thanks, Regards JB

[VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.4.2 RC0

Hi Everyone, I propose that we release the following RC as the official Apache Iceberg 1.4.2 release. The commit ID is f6bb9173b13424d77e7ad8439b5ef9627e530cb2 * This corresponds to the tag: apache-iceberg-1.4.2-rc0 * https://github.com/apache/iceberg/commits/apache-iceberg-1.4.2-rc0 * https://gi

Re: [DISCUSS] Equality field IDs for data files?

I also noticed recently that the equality field IDs were exposed when they shouldn't be in the builder. I'm all for removing it in 2.0 and throwing an exception if anyone tries to set them. That was the original intent. On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:29 PM Anton Okolnychyi wrote: > Hey folks, > > I

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.5.1 RC2

+1 (binding) Verified the same way I did last time. On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 5:21 PM Daniel Weeks wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Verified sigs/sums/license/install/test (python 3.10) > > Ran extensive filter tests and everything worked as expected with > Arrow/Pandas/DuckDB. > > -Dan > > On Fri, Oct

[DISCUSS] Apache Iceberg 1.4.2

Hi all, I wanted to start a discussion to have a 1.4.2 patch release. For context, invalid split offsets were written in metadata due to a bug in 1.4.0. 1.4.1 included a patch for ignoring split offsets in case it is known they are invalid. The goal o