>From my POV the "release/a.b.c" pattern for release branches is self-explanatory and has prior history in Polaris.
If the release guilde is perceived as too vague on this topic, let's update the guide and keep the pattern. In that regard, we may want to discuss whether to use very versions specific branches like release/1.0.0 or use a branch per minor versions like release/1.0.x I'm personally fine with either approach. Another question: shall we tag after a release is approved and remove release branches? >From my POV doing that would make sense so as to keep the set branches lean and clean (as discussed in a separate thread in a more general context). We can always re-create branches for point releases from the previous release tag. WDYT? Cheers, Dmitri. On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 4:55 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > Delete the branch "1.0.x". > > I'm OK with the name "release/1.0.x", but I don't think the current release > guideline[1] mentioned any mandatory branch name convention. The name > "release/x.y.z" is part of an example. We should add that name convention > to the guidelines. > > [1] https://polaris.apache.org/community/release-guide/ > > Yufei > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 11:07 AM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > > Heads up: It's also documented in the release-guide via > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1539, not sure you saw it. That > > doc also mentions how to apply versions, create tags etc. > > > > On 12.06.25 19:41, Yufei Gu wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > > >> > > -- > > Robert Stupp > > @snazy > > > > >
