I've marked [1889] as a 1.0 blocker. Feel free to disagree :) My rationale:
Polaris 1.0 is a binary release and will provide a platform for users to experiment with Generic Tables. It is important to set correct expectations about this feature in terms of functional scope, level of maturity, plans for evolution.... which is what the PR hopefully provides (I did not review yet :) ) [1889] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1889 Cheers, Dmitri. On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 7:17 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 > > > > >
