For me as well
On 21.03.25 15:07, Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote:
0.10.0-beta works for me
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 9:47 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Hi Yufei,
Thanks for your reply!
I propose to use 0.10.0-beta (as consensus).
I'm moving forward on the PR about LICENSE/NOTICE and checking the
artifacts. I will create this milestone on GitHub.
Thanks,
Regards
JB
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:04 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm OK with 0.10.0-preview or Robert's idea of with a "-beta" or
"-experimental" or 1.0.0-preview. We just need to give users a clear
message that it's not a stable release you can rely on.
Yufei
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 7:25 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Thanks guys for the feedback.
@Yufei, what do you think about 0.10.0 release then ?
If we don't find a consensus on versioning, then, let's focus on the
1.0.0 release directly.
I would like to remind the purpose of the 0.10.0/1.0.0-preview release
purpose:
- include binary distributions
- include legal aspect for all artifacts
- submit the release to the mentors and, if passed, to the IPMC
The idea is to validate a release with binary distributions/artifacts
before the 1.0.0 release.
Regards
JB
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 2:54 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org>
wrote:
I'd be fine with 1.0.0-preview1 if we had a solid Persistence
codebase.
I do not think that 1.0.0 necessarily conveys the idea of stability
in
runtime, but I do believe that it has strong connotations for semver.
Given
that NoSQL persistence is not settled yet, I'd like to avoid making
a 1.0
release because then we'd have to introduce major persistence
changes in
a
minor release, which IMHO does not align with semver concepts very
well.
... and I guess we're not ready for 2.0 yet :)
Cheers,
Dmitri.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:38 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Hi everyone,
@Dmitri and @Robert, are you fine with 1.0.0-preview1 ?
I would like to move forward on this front ;)
Thanks,
Regards
JB
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 12:08 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Agreed with JB that 1.0-pre makes sense. My concern with 0.10.0
is
that
it
could mislead users into thinking an arbitrary cut from main
qualifies
as a
stable release.
Yufei
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 10:30 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
It depends. For instance, Spark 4.0-preview started more than a
year
ago, and the scope changed.
If we communicate clearly it's just a previous and the scope
can
still
change, it's acceptable.
I did the same on multiple projects: Camel 4.0.0.M1, M2, RC1,
RC2,
were different in content.
I would separate the discussions in two parts:
1. Should we have a discussion about what will be included in
1.0 ?
Maybe yes, based on what we have in the GitHub Milestone. I
would
propose to start a separate thread about that.
2. For preview release, as the idea is:
2.1. Do a preparation release from main, different from 0.9.0,
including binary artifacts.
2.2. Verify all legal aspects and the release is OK for the
IPMC
So, 0.10.0 or 1.0.0-preview work. Personally, I consider
1.0.0-preview
more meaningful because, without considering the scope/content,
it's
really what it is: a preview release to test our process and
legal
aspects.
Regards
JB
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 4:39 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <
di...@apache.org>
wrote:
Using 1.0.0-preview1 implies the scope of 1.0 is
well-defined...
but
my
impression is that it is not so.
I think the 0.10.0 version is clear enough that it comes
before
1.0
and
does not have any implied scope.
While 0.10.0 is in progress, I believe we need to review the
scope
of 1.0
as a community on the dev list. I might have missed previous
discussions,
but I do not recall a consensus on what goes into 1.0 :)
WDYT?
Thanks,
Dmitri.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 9:49 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Usually, at Apache, we have two kind of versioning for
"pre-release":
- 1.0.0.M1 and 1.0.0.RC1 (Apache Superset, Apache Camel,
Apache
Karaf,
Apache Cassandra, ... used this versioning)
- 1.0.0-preview1 (Apache Spark, Apache Flink, ... used this
versioning)
For "clarity" for our community and users, I propose to use
Apache
Polaris (incubating) 1.0.0-preview1.
Any objections?
Regards
JB
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 2:37 PM Kamesh Sampath
<kamesh.samp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Shall we name it like 1.0-pre? That aligns with common
pattern
across
many opensource projects, another thought is to make that
more
semver
friendly
________________________________
From: Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 11:59:27 PM
To: dev@polaris.apache.org <dev@polaris.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Preparing 0.10.0 release including
binary
distributions
Thanks for the explanation, JB! In that case, we may
focus on
0.10.0
only.
How about a name like pre-1.0, which clarifies that it's
a
release
mainly
to test out something for 1.0.0?
Yufei
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 11:33 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Hi Yufei
That's a good point.
What about doing both ?
- 0.9.1 would be the same as 0.9.0 but with binary
distributions
- 0.10.0 would be based on main
The reason I would like to do that is because the
binary
distributions
are not the same (the framework used is not the same).
In order to "prepare" 1.0.0, 0.10.0 would be welcome
(binary
distributions will be "close" between 0.10.0 and
1.0.0).
Regards
JB
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:21 PM Yufei Gu <
flyrain...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think it's a good idea. Thanks JB.
If it's only for testing binary distributions. Can we
base
it on
0.9.0 so
that we can give users a clear message that
everything
else
is
the
same
as
0.9.0 except it provides binary distribution?
This is mainly to make life easier for OSS users as
well
as
developers.
1. In case of bug fix on 0.9.0, we can directly do
it in
0.10.1.
The
community doesn't have to maintain two branches for
bug
fix.
2. Users don't have to choose between 0.9.0 and
0.10.0,
as
they
are
the
same. If they need binary distribution, they just go
with
0.10.0.
Otherwise, either one is fine.
Yufei
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 1:02 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
<
j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Hi Dmitri
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhub.docker.com%2Fr%2Fapache%2Fpolaris&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7f8be0632d94e45161d08dd65214bfa%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638777915862430638%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NVaaj1zJTdNVzm3bJTHyGuoFFXNjZ0KcOFwUK6T%2FXJc%3D&reserved=0
<https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/polaris>
It's empty for now :)
Regards
JB
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 8:56 PM Dmitri
Bourlatchkov <
di...@apache.org>
wrote:
As we have a Polaris repo on Docker HUB [...]
What do we currently push there?
Thanks,
Dmitri.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:47 PM Jean-Baptiste
Onofré
<
j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
The binary distributions are everything we
distribute/publish.
I
would
focus on archive (tar.gz/zip), and jar files.
As we have a Polaris repo on Docker HUB, I will
also
include
docker
image
check.
Regards
JB
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 1:53 PM Dmitri
Bourlatchkov <
di...@apache.org>
wrote:
I think it's a good idea. Thanks for taking
care
of
this, JB!
What is included in the binary distribution?
Just
jars or
docker
too?
Side note: we should probably adjust PR
#1070 [1]
since
the
first
release
number is going to be different.
[1]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpolaris%2Fpull%2F1170&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7f8be0632d94e45161d08dd65214bfa%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638777915862447357%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Kj2ICW5RyNQiHkJT%2Bk2QbhRDzzfRCmofyunCFTFcPjk%3D&reserved=0
<https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1170>
Cheers,
Dmitri.
Thanks,
Dmitri.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 5:58 AM Jean-Baptiste
Onofré
<
j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Hi folks,
We are working on the 1.0.0 release, with a
lot of
new
features and
fixes.
One important change between 0.9.0 and
1.0.0
is the
publication of
the
binary distributions, with all related
requirements
(LICENSE/NOTICE,
etc).
I'm working on the LICENSE/NOTICE and
binary
distributions
publication.
Considering the time we needed to complete
the
0.9.0
release, I
think
it would be great to "anticipate" a little
before
1.0.0. It
would
allow us to "accelerate" on the 1.0.0
release
and
beyond.
I would like to propose the 0.10.0
release, as
an
"intermediate"
release. I would like to prepare this
release
by
the
end of
next
week,
creating the 0.10.x branch (based on the
main
branch)
on
Saturday,
March 22 and cutting the 0.10.0 release on
Monday,
March
24.
Thoughts ?
Regards
JB
--
Robert Stupp
@snazy
