Thanks for chiming in, JB. You're right, the discussion around Generic Tables isn't necessarily tied to a specific release. That said, aligning its GA with a release still makes sense, as reflected in the roadmap.
I've created the 1.1.0-blocker label. Feel free to apply it to any relevant issues or PRs. Yufei On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 8:36 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Yeah, agree. > > I think we have two separate discussions here: > 1. This thread was initially about 1.1.0-incubating release proposal > and adopt the monthly release pace > 2. The discussion about Generic Tables (about experimental yes or no) > is independent to the release cycle. > > Anything blocker (break build or regression) is a blocker for release, > and definitely must be included in the next release. > The rest is best-effort. > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 6:27 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Let’s not allow the monthly release cadence to get in the way of > > high-impact conversations, like re-evaluating the status of generic > tables. > > Remember how we all knew the community needed 1.0, but we kept piling on > > blockers? A release only matters if it actually delivers value to users. > > > > Absolutely keep tagging anything that’s truly a 1.1.0 blocker, for > example, > > things that would break the build or create serious regressions. But > let’s > > treat the milestone label as a best-effort goal, not a gate. > > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 8:31 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > From my POV the "1.1.0" milestone works just as well and causes less > > > agitation than a "blocker" label :) > > > > > > We can use it for collecting work items for a release. Whether > something is > > > a blocker probably needs to be discussed on the dev ML anyway. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 9:13 AM 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 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
