-1 The consensus on the thread of the 1.20 RC 0 vote was that we would fix it by next release, i.e. 1.21. We can't make another release containing category B artifacts. I have logged https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3822 to track this.
Julian On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:29 AM Anton Haidai <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > Local Calcite build with tests enabled on Linux: *OK* > Calcite-based system (Zoomdata) test suite: *OK** > > ***FYI: *EnumerableTableScanRule* changes related to CALCITE-3769 caused a > massive regression on our test suite because the rule produced > *BindableTableScan* instead of *EnumerableTableScan* for our custom table > classes (which is a bit strange for a rule with this name). So we were > forced to revert this rule to 1.21 state. > > +1 (non-binding) > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 4:47 PM Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -1 (non binding) > > > > Good news: I am able to build and run tests locally > > > > Bad news: > > - I have found a regression in Bind Variable handling in "UPDATE" > > statements due to > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3672 > > see the separate email Thread "Problems on RC with HerdDB: was: [VOTE] > > Release apache-calcite-1.22.0 (release candidate 0)" > > - IMHO the "license" issue is a blocker for a release, but it is up to > > the PMC to accept or not it > > > > Thank you Danny for driving this release, it is very hard > > > > Enrico > > > > > > Il giorno mar 25 feb 2020 alle ore 14:36 Vladimir Sitnikov > > <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > > > I have already surfaced the case in 1.20.0 release: > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/33694a2e754ff63e49e5fd05d52be1f72773c15f4a66adf766223b86%40%3Cdev.calcite.apache.org%3E > > > > > > Technically speaking, Calcite release artifacts violate ASF licensing > > > policy. > > > Then it is up to the release manager to decide if the release is valid or > > > not. > > > > > > Vladimir > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Anton.
