Hi Yufei, I agree that we do not have consensus on the _contents_ of PRs 1889 and 1890.
However, I believe the issues these PRs attempt to address are still 1.0 blockers in my opinion (arguments for that given in previous emails). I'd say removing the blocker label from them itself needs consensus. Thoughts on this aspect are welcome from everyone. Thanks, Dmitri. On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 1:05 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitri, > > We don't have a consensus on adding these two PRs as 1.0 blocker. Can you > please drop the label? Let's discuss it first. I don't think they are 1.0 > blockers, but open to suggestions. > > 1. https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1889 > 2. https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1890 > > Yufei > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 9:50 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dimiri, > > > > Thanks a lot for driving this initiative[1]. Can you raise a separate > dev > > mail thread for this? I think this deserves a broad awareness. > > > > 1. https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1890 > > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 4:53 AM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > > >> I was thinking of how the Docker images are being staged and eventually > >> released. I know there was a dev-ML thread about this, but I think this > >> topic is important for the 1.0 release, so raising it here. > >> > >> The release-guide doesn't mention images at all, so the process isn't > >> clear. > >> > >> TL;DR of my reasoning is that we likely need 3 (!) repositories for both > >> the server and admin-tool: > >> * one for nightlies > >> * one for staging (before release-vote passes) > >> * one for released versions > >> > >> Due to the nature and restrictions of image repositories (no notion of > >> "snapshots") we cannot push "pending releases" to the 3rd one, because > >> tools like renovate of dependabot would blindly use those (same problem > >> as nightlies vs releases). > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> On 16.05.25 04:31, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >> > Hi Yufei > >> > > >> > Thanks for your message ! > >> > > >> > It looks good to me. > >> > > >> > As prerequisite (obviously), we should also complete > >> > 0.10.0-beta-incubating release to be sure we are good there before > >> > 1.0.0. > >> > > >> > Just a comment: I think we should limit the number of community > >> > meetings. This topic should be typically discussed on the mailing list > >> > (as you are doing :)). > >> > The reasons why I'm not big fan of too much meeetings are: > >> > 1. No everyone in the community can join (due to timezone, not willing > >> > to speak/appear on call, ...) > >> > 2. It puts "pressure" on the community to attend ("if I'm not in the > >> > meeting, I'm not in the community" issue) > >> > 3. Due to 1 & 2, no decision should be taken in meetings, and even if > >> > meetings are recorded, it's not archive as mailing list > >> > So, I encourage meetings as community meet&greed, or to discuss about > >> > specific topics, not decision making topic. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Regards > >> > JB > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:38 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> Hi folks, > >> >> > >> >> Many users have been asking about the Polaris release, and I believe > >> it's > >> >> critical to have a formal, production-ready 1.0 release ASAP. Thanks > >> to the > >> >> community’s hard work, we’re very close with a few remaining blockers > >> we > >> >> need to resolve. > >> >> > >> >> To keep things moving, I scheduled a community meeting for the 1.0 > >> release > >> >> next Monday at 9 AM PST. At the same time, sharing all issues marked > >> with > >> >> 1.0 blocker. We could resolve them here if possible. Feel free to > >> chime in, > >> >> remove the blocker tag if you think it's not a blocker, or pick any > up. > >> >> Thanks a lot in advance! > >> >> > >> >> Here is the list: > >> >> > >> >> - Add CI for Python code ( > >> >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1058>#1058), > >> >> - Polaris persistence concurrency issues (#777) > >> >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/777> > >> >> - Task handling is incomplete (#774) > >> >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/774> > >> >> - Generated files in regtests/client/python/polaris (#755) > >> >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/755> > >> >> - Resources not properly closed, resource & memory leaks > (#563) > >> >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/563> > >> >> - Make Polaris safe against certain unparseable locations > (#552) > >> >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/552> > >> >> - [BUG] Assumption that cache eviction does not happen (#544) > >> >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/544> > >> >> > >> >> To make it more interactive, you can also comment on the google > >> >> spreadsheet here: > >> >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GyLvp2cdYwioOsBwszNWiphZt_IIdo4LIfsZBFV88mc/edit?usp=sharing > >> >> > >> >> Yufei > >> > >> -- > >> Robert Stupp > >> @snazy > >> > >> >
