I also think that the compatibility between helm charts and Polaris binaries will need more attention if we use a separate repository.
However, from my POV I'd expect helm charts to get changes / contributions independently of the Polaris Server code (for all sorts of deployment choices), so having it in a separate repository is probably going to make maintenance easier (to recap: I originally supported more frequent / independent chart releases too). We could release Polaris Server patch releases with Helm changes but without server code changes, but I guess this kind of release process will be error-prone and more difficult for release managers (for having to pay close attention to what needs to be cherry-picked). +1 to apache/polaris-helm-chart Cheers, Dmitri. On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 8:02 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi > > I'm fine having a dedicated repo for helm chart, it all depends on > what we want to release: > 1. If we just want to release helm charts "package", then helm charts > can stay in the polaris repo (as so part of the source distribution) > 2. if we want to release a complete different source distribution and > package for Helm Charts, then we can have a complete separate > repository. > > Apache projects use both. For instance, Airflow is using (1), whereas > Pulsar or Ozone are using (2). > > If we have a consensus for a separate repo, I would suggest > apache/polaris-helm-chart repository. I can create. > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 1:25 PM Alexandre Dutra <adu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > For reference and completeness, this has also been previously > > discussed in a much older thread: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/428xb6dfrmm7xgr91p2dxoy8ptcyovs2 > > > > So far the consensus was, as Yufei pointed out, to release the Helm > > chart along with the Polaris server release (+docker images, etc.) – > > mostly for the sake of simplicity. > > > > I confess I'm torn on the idea of separate releases and/or moving the > > chart to the polaris-tools repo. I fear that the chart could quickly > > lag behind Polaris itself, especially when configuration options > > change. > > > > But if that is now the preferred option, I'm fine with that. > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 5:27 AM Yong Zheng <yzh...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > I also likes the idea of moving the chart to a different repo (some > obvious downsize are we will need to move some work around and duplicate > some build pipeline etc.). Also, another thing we will loss is the > published helm doc (assuming we still want it, otherwise, just ask people > to get the info from README.md from git repo). Other than these, I don't > have a concern. > > > > > > On 2025/07/12 11:21:53 Robert Stupp wrote: > > > > If the consensus is to have a different release cadences for the > > > > Polars helm chart and Polaris "server", I propose to move the helm > > > > charts to polaris-tools. One difference between the two repos is that > > > > the "main" repo eventually gets (semi) automatic releases that might > > > > get confused with rather manually driven helm-chart releases (it will > > > > have to use and check against Git tags and potentially version > > > > branches). Therefore the polaris-tools repo sounds more appropriate, > > > > because there are already multiple "sub projects". > > > > > > > > Another reason to move the helm-charts to polaris-tools is that the > > > > helm-charts, if released independently, become suitable for multiple > > > > Polaris versions, which requires tests/CI against multiple Polaris > > > > versions. Letting pretty much every change to the "main" repository > > > > trigger CI for a potentially big helm-chart/Polaris test-matrix seems > > > > to be an unnecessary waste of CI time. In polaris-tools, all CI jobs > > > > are "scoped" to a particular "root path". > > > > > > > > Different release cadences also mean to maintain a "compatibility > > > > matrix", not immediately, but in the (near?) future. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 9:08 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good. I think Apache Airflow did the exact same thing by > publishing > > > > > both Helm Chart source and Helm Chart binary package. We still > need to > > > > > figure out a few things: > > > > > 1. What does the Helm Chart version look like? > > > > > 2. Publishing a version map between Helm Chart and Polaris server > as the > > > > > part of Helm Chart doc. For example, Helm Chart version 1.2.0 > works with > > > > > Polaris server 0.9.0, 1.0.0, and 1.1.0. > > > > > 3. What's the default docker image tag? I'd suggest using the > latest > > > > > Polaris release version(e.g., 1.0.0-incubating) at the time the > Helm Chart > > > > > was published. > > > > > 4. Location would be easy to decide, we can continue to publish it > to > > > > > dist.apache.org as 1.0.0-incubating did. > > > > > > > > > > If we decide to release the Helm chart on its own cadence, we > don't need a > > > > > nightly Helm Chart release at this time. > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:32 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not a problem for me to release "part" of Polaris like Helm > chart. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the release has to be "ASF valid", meaning that the > release > > > > > > needs to include source distribution. Today, we don't have source > > > > > > distribution only for Helm chart (it's global source distribution > > > > > > including Helm sources). > > > > > > So, I propose to include a source tar gradle task in Helm chart > (with > > > > > > signing and checksum). If we do that, no problem. I can take a > crack > > > > > > on this :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 1:30 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While testing the freshly-minted 1.0.0-incubating release, we > noticed > > > > > > > something odd: the Polaris release has relational-jdbc > persistence, yet > > > > > > the > > > > > > > Helm chart only understands the legacy eclipselink. Here is > the issue: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/2030. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We previously made the decision to publish Helm Chart with > Polaris src > > > > > > and > > > > > > > bin, check the ML thread: > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/d1vf7xpn6nkzp8gbh417m8qb58tkpcqz. We may > > > > > > > revisit the approach. I think it makes more sense to release > the Helm > > > > > > chart > > > > > > > on its own cadence. Not all Polaris users need Helm charts, > plus Helm > > > > > > chart > > > > > > > tweaking happens commonly between Polaris server releases. > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, we can start to release the nightly Helm Chart as a > quick > > > > > > > solution for any users trying the new release with JDBC > backend. Thoughts > > > > > > > and volunteers for this one? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > >
