Thanks for the explanation. Created a new branch named "release/1.0.x" for the 1.0 release. I will delete "1.0.x" a bit later.
Yufei On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 9:05 AM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > Not sure whether everybody followed how the releases were crafted. We > discussed the branch naming pattern before during community sync calls. > There's also the draft PR 485 for semi-automatic releases that relies on > the same naming pattern. To change that, we have to have a discussion on > dev@ first. > > 1695 is for me a legit 1.0-blocker, as it changes the artifact names > that users may refer to - including downloadable binary distributions. > Either we change it before 1.0 or not at all. > > PR 485: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/485 > > > On 12.06.25 17:48, Yufei Gu wrote: > > 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 > >>> > >>> > -- > Robert Stupp > @snazy > >
