If 90% of the community thinks it's a blocker, then, that's fair :) It would be surprising to be a blocker considering a release per month, we can always include in next one. But consensus wins ;)
Regards JB On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 3:12 PM Eric Maynard <eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As far as this thread is concerned, what does everyone think about just using > a 1.1.0-blocker label similar to the one we had for 1.0 and treating that as > the source of truth? > > If we take that approach, we can hash out the status of some change to > generic tables as a release blocker on the relevant issue or mailing list > thread. > > —EM > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 21:55 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >> >> By the way, specifically about Generic Tables I would still keep it as >> experimental for the following reasons: >> 1. We would need more feedback from the community to both evaluate >> it's an interesting feature (from community standpoint) and it works >> as the community expects >> 2. Generic table has been included in 1.0.0, I think would consider at >> least a couple of features (due to the first point) before considering >> as non experimental feature. So probably 1.2.0 (e.g. September >> release) would be a good time to evaluate Generic Table (also with the >> help of the community). >> 3. Very selfish :), I have a new proposal that I plan to submit soon >> that could be a good "complement" of Generic Table. >> >> Just my $0.01 :) >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 1:00 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> > >> > Yeah you are right. It’s probably feature per feature. A discussion on dev >> > can happen to remove the experiment flag. My point is that it’s not >> > related to a release: as soon as the discussion happens and experimental >> > flag is removed it will be included in the next release (monthly). >> > >> > Wdyt ? >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > Le mar. 29 juil. 2025 à 11:40, Eric Maynard <eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com> a >> > écrit : >> >> >> >> I agree with everything you said JB, but I’m not that it addresses the >> >> question around generic tables and the experimental label. In the case of >> >> generic tables the feature is already in 1.0. It will be in 1.1.0. >> >> >> >> However we are labeling it “experimental” and the question here is about >> >> under what conditions that label will be removed. Is it some number of >> >> releases? A vote? >> >> >> >> We should clarify this process, as right now it seems rather arbitrary. It >> >> appears that there is at least some tenuous connection to releases in the >> >> minds of some community members, as this labeling of the feature as >> >> experimental was reported to be a 1.0 blocker. >> >> >> >> —EM >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 13:37 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi >> >> > >> >> > As we plan a monthly release pace now, I think we should use “best >> >> > effort” >> >> > about what’s included in a release. If it’s not in this month release it >> >> > can included in next month one. >> >> > It means that I plan 1.2.0 in September, 1.3.0 in October, etc. IMHO we >> >> > should remove the target release number from roadmap gh discussion and >> >> > instead list what we want by priority: as soon as it’s ready we ship it >> >> > in >> >> > the month release. >> >> > >> >> > With this approach, and as we will have a release every month, I’m not >> >> > sure >> >> > a dedicated meeting will help much. Instead I propose we update the >> >> > issues/PRs with target milestone, and if not done at release date, we >> >> > postpone to next month release. >> >> > >> >> > The purpose is to not being too ambitious in terms of what’s included >> >> > but >> >> > have more frequent and predictable release dates for our users. >> >> > >> >> > Thoughts ? >> >> > >> >> > Regards >> >> > JB >> >> > >> >> > Le mar. 29 juil. 2025 à 00:14, Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> a >> >> > écrit : >> >> > >> >> > > Hi Yufei, >> >> > > >> >> > > > Can you elaborate on it? >> >> > > >> >> > > I proposed discussing (and elaborating on arguments about) the Generic >> >> > > Tables API in a separate thread. >> >> > > >> >> > > Cheers, >> >> > > Dmitri. >> >> > > >> >> > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 5:06 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > > Hi Dmitri, >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Thanks for chiming in. Are there any volunteers to work on Helm >> >> > > > chart >> >> > > > separation and CLI client publishing? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > The related use cases and the future of them are still not clear >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Can you elaborate on it? The Delta table use case is pretty clear >> >> > > > to me >> >> > > > that Polaris can host Delta tables and they are accessible from >> >> > > > Spark. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Yufei >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 1:56 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov >> >> > > > <di...@apache.org> >> >> > > > wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > Hi Yufei, >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Re: Generic Tables API - I do not think it is ready to be a >> >> > > > > standard >> >> > > > > feature in 1.1. The related use cases and the future of them are >> >> > still >> >> > > > not >> >> > > > > clear, as far as I can tell. It may be worth having a separate >> >> > > discussion >> >> > > > > thread for this. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > +1 to a separate helm repo (I believe this was discussed in >> >> > > > > another >> >> > > > thread >> >> > > > > too). >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > +1 to include CLI into the binary bundle. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Cheers, >> >> > > > > Dmitri. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 3:12 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > The timeline LGTM! >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > We’ll need to align on the scope. In addition to several ongoing >> >> > > > features >> >> > > > > > that should be ready by then, like MinIO support and KMS support >> >> > (PR >> >> > > > > > #1424). There are a few key items(not a complete list) that need >> >> > > > > > discussion: >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > - Generic Table & Catalog Federation Status: We need to >> >> > > > > > decide >> >> > > > whether >> >> > > > > > the generic table feature and catalog federation should be >> >> > > > > > moved >> >> > > out >> >> > > > > of >> >> > > > > > preview. Personally, I’d like to see the generic table >> >> > > > > > feature >> >> > > > > graduate >> >> > > > > > from preview. >> >> > > > > > - Helm Chart Repository & Release Strategy: I propose moving >> >> > > > > > the >> >> > > > Helm >> >> > > > > > Chart to a separate repository and releasing it >> >> > > > > > independently. >> >> > > > > Ideally, >> >> > > > > > this should be in place by the 1.1.0 release. >> >> > > > > > - CLI Client Release: I’d like to include the CLI client >> >> > > > > > within >> >> > > the >> >> > > > > > binary bundle and get it published along with 1.1 release. >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I'd also propose a dedicated community sync for the 1.1 release. >> >> > > > > Thoughts? >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Yufei >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 8:22 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < >> >> > > di...@apache.org> >> >> > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > A mid-August release sounds good to me. >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I've added MinIO-related issues to the milestone: >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > * https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1901 >> >> > > > > > > * https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1530 >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Cheers, >> >> > > > > > > Dmitri. >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 1:07 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> >> > > > j...@nanthrax.net> >> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Hi folks, >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I propose to have 1.1.0-incubating release around August 20. >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > On github: >> >> > > > > > > > 1. I updated 1.1.0 milestone due date >> >> > > > > > > > 2. I will move the open issues still on 1.0.0 milestone to >> >> > 1.1.0 >> >> > > > > > > > 3. I will close the 1.0.0 milestone (as it has been >> >> > > > > > > > released) >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > My main focus is to review/update/improve the release guide >> >> > > > > > > > and >> >> > > > move >> >> > > > > > > > forward on semi-automatic release. >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts ? >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > If you agree, feel free to create/assign issues for the >> >> > > > > > > > 1.1.0 >> >> > > > > > milestone. >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks ! >> >> > > > > > > > Regards >> >> > > > > > > > JB >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> >
