Hi Yun, What do you mean by a "quick nightly release" for helm charts? How will it work technically?
Thanks, Dmitri. On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:54 AM yun zou <yunzou.colost...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Team, > > I'd like to bring this thread back to the top. Aside from the long-term > plan to separate > the release, are we still considering a quick nightly release to unblock > users, or are > we ok to wait for the next scheduled release (seems the next scheduled > release is around Aug 20th) ? > > Be > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 11:38 AM yun zou <yunzou.colost...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > If we decide to adopt an independent release cadence for the Helm > > chart, it might > > be more intuitive to host it in a separate repository. While this would > > increase the > > effort required to maintain compatibility between Helm chart releases and > > Polaris > > releases—particularly around testing and documentation—it could be a > > worthwhile > > trade-off if we start seeing frequent divergence in release timelines > > between the two > > (whether the chart moves faster or slower). That said, if Polaris > > continues to release > > at a fast pace, the added complexity may not be necessary. > > > > In parallel with this discussion on separate release cadences for the > Helm > > chart, another > > important point raised in this thread is whether we should consider doing > > nightly build > > releases in the short term? > > This could help address the JDBC use case mentioned here: > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/2030. > > might be helpful in unblocking that use case and could support onboarding > > more users > > ahead of the next official Polaris release. > > > > Best Regards, > > Yun > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 10:42 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > >
