I agree that doing the renaming now (before the 1.0 release) is much
much easier even if it'd be renamed in a following major release.
I hear there are concerns about the current naming. The current name was
chosen at that time to disambiguate the "Quarkus variant" from the
previous one, which existed in parallel in the code base. IIRC there was
consensus at that time to rename it once the previous one is gone.
The current server artifact name reads "polaris-quarkus-server", which
raises the question: "Is there another server?" (the answer is: "Nope").
Anecdotally, in Nessie we have the same problem, but could never rename
it, just because there are way too many downstream dependencies.
Considering that, I revert my statement from yesterday's community sync
and think that we should rename now or never.
I'm +1 on renaming and use the opportunity and restart the "nomenclature
arguing dance" and propose:
* `polaris-server` for the current `polaris-quarkus-server`
* `polaris-admin-tool` for the current `polaris-quarkus-admin`
"runtime" is IMHO superfluous - a "server" is actually always a "runtime
thing", similar for the "admin tool".
How the directory structure looks like is a 2nd-ary question as it
doesn't affect the distributed artifacts - so "runtime" is okay for me
there.
Robert
On 13.06.25 02:05, Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote:
Re: the server module rename [1695]:
I see that the 1.0 blocker label was removed from it. I'm personally ok
with not including it in 1.0.0.
However, I'd prefer to include it if other people find it valuable too. My
rationale:
* The new module names are more natural and probably more intuitive to
users and potential contributors.
* The module names make their way to Maven repositories so any rename after
the first binary release will be a burden (even if we do it in 2.0) both to
Polaris and to downstream projects.
The downside for including it now seems small: 1) re-applying the rename to
the latest main (hopefully not difficult as there are no functional
changes) 2) minor risk of breaking scripts or docker images. Note that this
will hold even if we do the renaming later.
I do not think this rename is going to slow the release process down
considerably. The base release timeline has not been short in Polaris to
begin with.
[1695] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1695
Cheers,
Dmitri.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 11:58 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Not sure I follow you (maybe you didn't reply to my message specifically
:)).
My proposal was just to call for 1.0 consensus. Are we good in what
should be included ?
About #1695, if no consensus, I'm fine to remove the 1.0-blocker label
here (it was best effort, and can be done later).
Regards
JB
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 5:48 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> 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
