Hi folks Back from the other part of the pond :)
I think we should have a clear consensus about 1.0 content. That’s why I invite everyone to flag issues and PRs with the 1.0-blocker label. I propose to do a review in 24h. As soon as we don’t have any 1.0-blocker, we are good to start rc. We can also chat about that during the community meeting today. If it helps, I’m happy to prepare the 1.0 rc0 (I’m doing a new pass on the main branch mainly about license/notice etc). Thanks ! Regards JB Le jeu. 12 juin 2025 à 10:10, Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> a écrit : > Agree with Dmitri. > > Having clear discussion subjects is crucial for the community to follow > the right threads. I think we should only get to consensus about the > particular thread topic and nothing else. > > Consensus in a community in general, at least in my opinion, is more > than two people having the same opinion. > > We should also be careful about giving everybody enough time, and > consider weekends and potentially public regional holidays. > > Regarding the technical actions: The branch name doesn't comply with the > existing naming convention (the branch naming pattern that JB used), > which is also required to later support semi-automatic releases > (discussed a couple months ago during a community sync call). > > Considering that we do not seem to have a consensus on the content of > the 1.0 release, there are still 1.0-blockers and the wrong branch name, > I strongly prefer do delete that branch. > > Regarding the release manager, I'm in favor of letting JB drive the > release process to ensure that things go smooth. > > Related note: We already have quite a bunch of branches in the GH repo > whose meaning is not clear to me. > > Robert > > > On 12.06.25 00:37, Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > The consensus in that thread was to skip the 0.10.0 release. > > > > From my POV an agreement to skip 0.10.0 does not mean that the scope for > > 1.0 is set and agreed upon. > > > > What I'm asking for is proactively engaging with the community before > > executing technical actions for a new release as opposed to informing > after > > actions are taken. > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/8kx1mjg7hsq09z3rlmf77g4trs5p9xrh > > > > Thanks, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 6:20 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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 > >>>>> > -- > Robert Stupp > @snazy > >
