Hi Thanks Alex, I tested and merged it (FYI, as said, I was about to submit the PR).
I will resume rc2 preparation. Regards JB On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 5:38 PM Alex Dutra <alex.du...@dremio.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > FYI I opened a PR with a fix for #542: > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/593 > > Thanks, > > Alex > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 6:09 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: >> >> Hi Yufei >> >> Yes there is still one issue I’m working on (about the binary >> distribution). >> >> We discussed rc2 with some community members. >> We can do just a release with source distribution now but including binary >> distribution would not be a good idea as it doesn’t work fine. >> >> So what I proposed: I’m fixing the issues we have on the binary >> distribution. >> >> As we need review and vote on rc2, I will work on the fixes during >> Christmas break and start the vote earlier Jan. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> Le jeu. 19 déc. 2024 à 21:30, Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> > Hi JB, >> > >> > Thanks for working on the licence fix(PR 495). Let's know if there are >> > other blockers. I'm OK with releasing source distribution for 0.9.0. >> > >> > Yufei >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 10:40 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Hi folks, >> >> >> >> I plan to merge https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/495 today. >> >> >> >> As we found several issues in the binary distribution: >> >> - https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/542 >> >> (https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/561) >> >> - and generally speaking >> >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Abug >> >> >> >> I propose to release *only* the source distribution for 0.9.0 and work >> >> on the Polaris binary/standalone distribution for 0.9.1 (bug fix). >> >> >> >> So my proposal is: >> >> - let's do 0.9.0 rc2 today (as soon as #542 is merged) >> >> - work on minimum Polaris binary distribution fixed for 0.9.1 (that I >> >> can do in January), if possible switch the runtime framework >> >> - 1.0.0 should be "standalone" production ready, it would be great to >> >> focus on this for Feb >> >> >> >> I also propose to list the high level releases on the website to give >> >> visibility to our users. >> >> >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> JB >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 7:24 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Hi guys >> >> > >> >> > I’m now back from travel. I’m resuming work on Polaris especially the >> >> rc2 preparation. >> >> > >> >> > The goal is to submit rc2 to vote this week. >> >> > >> >> > Regards >> >> > JB >> >> > >> >> > Le mar. 3 déc. 2024 à 16:31, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> a >> >> écrit : >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Yufei >> >> >> >> >> >> I have a couple of PRs that have to be merged before cutting the rc2. >> >> >> >> >> >> Especially this one: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/495 >> >> >> >> >> >> I already fixed the NOTICE file and the LICENSE for source >> >> >> distribution, LICENSE.bin is for binary distribution. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> JB >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 5:45 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Hi JB, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Do we have a new RC to vote? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yufei >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 10:21 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> >> j...@nanthrax.net> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Hi Ryan >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 1. For the LICENSE file, I agree with you: the LICENSE should only >> >> >> > > contain 3rd party *code* included in the *source* >> >> >> > > release (dependencies don't matter here). >> >> >> > > 2. For the NOTICE file, I don't think it should be so "simple" for >> >> two >> >> >> > > reasons: >> >> >> > > 2.1 According to the section 4.d of the ALv2, the NOTICE file >> >> should >> >> >> > > include NOTICE content from ALv2 software used by Polaris. >> >> >> > > 2.2.As recommended by the ASF, a copyright re-location should be >> >> >> > > mentioned in the NOTICE file (following a SGA) >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Anyway, I will fix all this. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Thanks, >> >> >> > > Regards >> >> >> > > JB >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 8:05 PM rdb...@gmail.com <rdb...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > -1 (binding) >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > I don't think that the license documentation is sufficient. It >> >> looks >> >> >> > > like the LICENSE file for the source tarball was auto-generated >> >> from >> >> >> > > dependencies and doesn't document the difference between >> >> dependencies and >> >> >> > > sources that are included. There is at least one library, >> >> jersey-json, that >> >> >> > > is dual licensed with a category B license (CDDL 1.1) and a >> >> category X >> >> >> > > license (GPL v2). I don't _think_ that code from that project is >> >> included, >> >> >> > > but nothing tells me that and if there were code included in the >> >> source >> >> >> > > tarball, this would not be releasable under [ASF policy]( >> >> >> > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html). >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > The NOTICE file is also incomplete, most likely because the >> >> >> > > documentation is auto-generated. There are clear notices in the >> >> text of >> >> >> > > LICENSE, which is what the NOTICE file is intended for (so >> >> downstream >> >> >> > > projects have one place to look for legally required notices). >> >> That file >> >> >> > > must also be minimal, so I think it needs to be researched and >> >> curated >> >> >> > > rather than generated. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Ryan >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 5:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> >> j...@nanthrax.net> >> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> Good call Dmitri. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> I agree with this plan. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> Is everyone happy with that ? >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> Regards >> >> >> > > >> JB >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 12:46 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov >> >> >> > > >> <dmitri.bourlatch...@dremio.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > I believe the 0.9.0 release was meant to be a trial release >> >> to test >> >> >> > > the process. With that in mind, in-memory polaris still works fine >> >> in >> >> >> > > 0.9.0. I suppose we can finish the release and fix issues on main >> >> for >> >> >> > > 0.9.1. This way we get to test how smoothly patch releases work >> >> too. >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > ... just my 2 cents :) >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > Cheers, >> >> >> > > >> > Dmitri. >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 4:53 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> >> j...@nanthrax.net> >> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> Just to be clear, my preference would be to revert #438 on >> >> 0.9 >> >> >> > > branch. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> Regards >> >> >> > > >> >> JB >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 10:51 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> >> >> > > j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > Hi Dmitri >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > Good catch. >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > I think it's severe enough to cancel rc1 and prepare a new >> >> one >> >> >> > > >> >> > including eclipselink fix. >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > Thoughts ? >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > Regards >> >> >> > > >> >> > JB >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 9:21 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov >> >> >> > > >> >> > <dmitri.bourlatch...@dremio.com.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > I've just noticed that RC1 includes >> >> >> > > >> >> > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/438, which, I >> >> think, >> >> >> > > makes >> >> >> > > >> >> > > bootstrapping on EclispeLink effectively impossible, >> >> because >> >> >> > > there's no >> >> >> > > >> >> > > user-level way to discover the generated root secret. >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > From my personal point of view it is not a release >> >> blocker, so >> >> >> > > I'm keeping >> >> >> > > >> >> > > my previous +1 vote, but I wanted to raise this concern >> >> in case >> >> >> > > it is >> >> >> > > >> >> > > important for other people. >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > Cheers, >> >> >> > > >> >> > > Dmitri. >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 11:37 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> >> >> > > j...@nanthrax.net> >> >> >> > > >> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > Actually, reverting my vote to +1 (binding) >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > NB >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > - .keep and .typed are actually empty files (even if >> >> flagged as >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > binary), so not a problem >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > - I will fix all gradle related issue during release >> >> process >> >> >> > > and >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > documentation (already working on fix about digest >> >> >> > > sourceTarball and >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > Maven publication) >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > Regards >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > JB >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 6:04 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> >> >> > > j...@nanthrax.net> >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > -1 (binding) >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > I found that the source distribution includes >> >> binaries, >> >> >> > > especially >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > gradlew, .keep, *.typed, it has to excluded from the >> >> source >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > distribution >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > I will cancel this vote to fix that in rc2. >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > Regards >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > JB >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 7:00 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> >> < >> >> >> > > j...@nanthrax.net> >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Hi everyone, >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > I propose that we release the following RC as the >> >> official >> >> >> > > Apache >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Polaris 0.9.0-incubating release. >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > * This corresponds to the tag: >> >> >> > > apache-polaris-0.9.0-incubating-rc1 >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > * >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> https://github.com/apache/polaris/commits/apache-polaris-0.9.0-incubating-rc1 >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > * >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> https://github.com/apache/polaris/tree/445c42768d1e3148c912ac5c45ee53036b9ef318 >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > The release tarball, signature, and checksums are >> >> here: >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > * >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/polaris/0.9.0-incubating/ >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > You can find the KEYS file here: >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > * >> >> >> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/polaris/KEYS >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Convenience binary artifacts are staged on Nexus. >> >> The >> >> >> > > Maven repository >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > URL is: >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > * >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepolaris-1003/ >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Please download, verify, and test. >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Please vote in the next 72 hours. >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > [ ] +1 Release this as Apache polaris >> >> 0.9.0-incubating >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > [ ] +0 >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this because... >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Only PPMC members and mentors have binding votes, >> >> but >> >> >> > > other community >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > members are >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > encouraged to cast non-binding votes. This vote >> >> will pass >> >> >> > > if there are >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 votes than >> >> -1 votes. >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > NB: if this vote passes, a new vote will be >> >> started on the >> >> >> > > Incubator >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > general mailing >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > list. >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Thanks >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Regards >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > JB >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >
