FYI, we fixed a few script and doc issues this week for the branch release/1.0.x! Special thanks to Eric, Yun, William, Jonas and Prashant for going through each individual doc and script, testing them out, filing issues and fixing. You can find the whole list here, https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20%20label%3A%221.0.0%20bug%20bash%22. Here is a list of commits merged into 1.0.x branch:
2025-06-13 e9b118df Fix two wrong links in README.md (#1879) -Yufei Gu 2025-06-12 9c46f3e4 Fix telemetry quickstart example for 1.0 release (#1873) -William Hyun 2025-06-12 d95935b2 Enhance EclipseLink quickstart (#1870) -Honah (Jonas) J. 2025-06-12 e927565c Update JDBC Getting-started example's README.md to use localhost for curl commands (#1872) -Honah (Jonas) J. Yufei On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 2:58 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm OK with the consensus process. Can you explain why introducing a > blocker doesn't need consensus? > > > This is to have a community-wide acknowledgement whether the _issues_ > represented by those PRs are not critical for 1.0. > > My opinion is that the issues are critical, even though we do not have an > agreement on the "fixes" for those issues, yet. > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 3:45 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for raising this, but I disagree on three fronts: > > > > - Neither 1889[1] nor 1890[2] introduces a functional gap that would > > prevent users from adopting 1.0. They document best-practice guidance > we > > can safely refine post-GA. Holding the release hostage to docs or > policy > > wording sets an impossibly high bar and delays useful features. > > - The incremental risk of shipping without these PRs is low: we’re not > > breaking contracts or data. By contrast, the value of shipping 1.0 on > > schedule—unblocking downstream integrations and giving users a clear > > target—is very high. > > - We’ve historically treated “blocker” as a last resort for > regressions > > or hard compatibility breaks. Expanding that scope to unresolved > > wording or > > scope debates dilutes the label. Unless someone surfaces a concrete > > technical regression linked to these PRs, the blocker tag should be > > removed. > > > > I'd say removing the blocker label from them itself needs consensus. > > > > I'm OK with the consensus process. Can you explain why introducing a > > blocker doesn't need consensus? > > > > 1. https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1889 > > 2. https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1890 > > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:14 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
