The branch name is "1.0.x". Where is this agreement recorded?
Discussed multiple times with JB last Thursday(6/5/2025) and this Monday(6/9/2025), we agreed to consider it as a nice-to-have instead of a blocker. As a matter of best practice, given the previous related discussion thread > [1], it would have been nice to conclude it with a message about starting > the 1.0 release process before actually cutting the branch. We got consensus on thread[1]. The 1.0 release was also prepared way before the thread. We will kick off 1.0 release even if 0.10 is not canceled. JB and I discussed the parallel releasing option for both versions. Also the last PPMC member's agreement on thread[1] happened 5 days ago, which passed the lazy consensus window. But I agreed it's nice to conclude a thread. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/8kx1mjg7hsq09z3rlmf77g4trs5p9xrh Yufei On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 2:33 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> wrote: > I cut the 1.0.x branch yesterday morning. > > > As a matter of best practice, given the previous related discussion thread > [1], it would have been nice to conclude it with a message about starting > the 1.0 release process before actually cutting the branch. > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/8kx1mjg7hsq09z3rlmf77g4trs5p9xrh > > Thanks, > Dmitri. > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 4:33 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks everyone for the contribution. We've finally resolved all > > blockers[1]. I cut the 1.0.x branch yesterday morning. Will only cherry > > pick bug fixes and license related commits to this branch starting now. > > > > [1]. PR1695 is labeled with 1.0 blocker, but we agreed that it's a > > best-to-have instead of a blocker per offline discussion, > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1695. > > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:21 PM Eric Maynard <eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 to making 801 a blocker. > > > > > > Based on Alex's comments in 1799, it looks like the rotation is only > > > happening in JdbcMetastoreManagerFactory? If so, I think we have a very > > > simple fix in PR#1804 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1804>. > > > > > > --EM > > > > > >
