We didn't do that for 0.9 and 0.10 releases before cutting a branch. If you think that's a new process we need to follow, please open a new dev ML thread for discussion.
the wrong branch name Can you explain why there is a wrong branch name? Where is this agreement recorded? Where is the agreement record of adding [1] as a 1.0 blocker? Can you open a thread for that if there is not? It seems controversial now. [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1695. Yufei On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 4:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > 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 > > > > >
