Agree, that was argument one, the second argument is that we need to move forward on cool features in the meantime ;)
On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 3:10 PM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > All in for good functionality! > > I think, you wanted to express that overall Polaris must really be "rock > solid" (secure, stable, performant) - aka: it would "just" be annoying, > if a certain functionality/feature isn't working properly. But it would > be a hard no-go if the system isn't stable, or even worse insecure. Correct? > > In other words: no feature/change must go in at the cost of security > and/or stability of Apache Polaris. > > On 09.12.24 14:10, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > Sorry to have been almost quiet last week, I was travelling. > > > > Following some discussion threads we got on the mailing list, I > > propose to populate a public roadmap using the following process: > > - we create GH Issues with the "proposal" tag > > - we can attach a document to this GH issue (and eventually a draft PR) > > - we send a message on the dev mailing with [PROPOSAL] subject > > - we publish this > > > > I would also like to emphasize we should focus on key features for > > Polaris. If it's good to have "technical" discussions, and it's worth > > it to spend effort on that, these discussions should be at the service > > to a bigger picture: what will be the key features expected by users > > and answering Polaris expectations. > > Our focus should be Polaris features, to make "progress" on the project. > > For instance, TMS, Delta support (reading/converting), persistence, > > RBAC, federated catalogs, integration (with OpenLineage, etc), S3 > > Tables support,... are what make Polaris and the future of Polaris. > > The technical discussions (enhanced runtime/Quarkus, persistence > > layer, ...) should be at the service of the features. Don't get me > > wrong: these are important discussions, however, personally, I'm ready > > to make concession here in favor of moving forward faster on the > > "features". I have the feeling we are spending a lot of time and > > effort on this instead of focusing on the Polaris features. > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Regards > > JB > > -- > Robert Stupp > @snazy >
