Hi, I guess you don't mean release, because a release (nightly or not) at Apache requires a vote and approval from PPMC + IPMC members. If you mean, nightly "snapshots" Helm chart build, it's OK.
However, it should be clearly for testing (it's nightly/snapshot so it's not for production). For production, as we plan independent release cycle for Helm Chart, we should just do a "regular" release. Regards JB On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 10:39 PM yun zou <yunzou.colost...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The purpose of a nightly Helm Chart release is to *quickly* unblock users, > as in this issue: https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/2030. > > The release process for the nightly Helm Chart would follow the same approach > as the current one—the main difference is that we’d need to publish it to a > separate release repository. As @Jean-Baptiste Onofré mentioned, we also > need to include the source in the release, which is not done yet. > > Alternatively, we could opt for a formal 1.0.1 release if that's preferred, > though > it may take longer for users to actually be able to use it. If that approach > is preferred > and we agree that unblocking users quickly is important, then it might be > best > to start the process as soon as possible. > > Best Regards, > Yun > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:29 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Sorry, I'm still not clear on the technical details of nightly helm >> releases. I imagine any official release will need a vote. >> >> If the intent of nightly helm releases is to allow end users to use them in >> their deployment environments (not just for testing), I do not think it >> would be a good idea due to lack of control of what actually goes into >> those artifacts. Users who want to use the very latest helm charts can >> always track `main` at the source level. >> >> In any case, since we obviously have some user demand for a helm chart fix, >> I suppose we could do a 1.0.1 release from the old 1.0.0 release branch by >> back-porting just helm chart fixes there and using the same manual process >> as for 1.0.0. This will not require adding a separate source bundle for the >> charts (it's part of the normal release already). >> >> Cheers, >> Dmitri. >> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 1:55 PM yun zou <yunzou.colost...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > This is based on what was mentioned in the first email >> > >> > > 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? >> > >> > I think the proposal is to do a non-formal release for Helm Chart with the >> > current master, and we will need a different place (not the same as the >> > current >> > helm chart release) to publish this Helm Chart release. >> > >> > Best Regards, >> > Yun >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 9:03 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > 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 >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
