Hi all,

It's great to focus on nightly/snapshot publications to test.pypi.org first!
Can we change the scope of the PR [1] to just this and leave
release-candidates and SVN out?

Robert

[1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3036

On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 3:38 AM Honah J. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Thanks for all the great points and suggestions! These are key elements for
> a robust release process of Python CLI. Given the number of missing pieces
> and to move this forward enough parallelization, I think we could have the
> following three tracks:
> 1. Have a formalized way to build release artifacts (wheels) that will
> later be released to PyPI for users to install.
> 2. Have ASF-compliant LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER
> 3. Have a formalized way to build and upload release candidate that include
> proper signature and checksum of release artifacts (release automation
> pipeline)
>
> Track 1's PR is out for review:[1] . Once merged, we’ll have CI coverage to
> ensure that future Python CLI changes don’t break the release artifacts,
> preventing delays in our release cycle. This will also allow us to enable
> nightly builds to test.pypi.org as JB mentioned. My proposal document
> includes an example from PyIceberg as well: [2].
>
> I've also created an issue for 3: [3]
>
> Thanks again also the generous offers to help. Looking forward to getting
> the full publication workflow in place as a community!
>
> [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3036
> [2]:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gbKYnFftpq884GhJ59waHdfoQG6MrevVAVCspf3hbrk/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.4vtad7spzmcr
> [3]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3098
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 4:55 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a proposal regarding the use of PyPI for our Python CLI publishing.
> >
> > To facilitate nightly builds and staging of release candidates for
> > voting, I propose we utilize test.pypi.org. This platform is
> > specifically designed for testing and previewing packages, and several
> > Apache projects are already using it for this purpose.
> >
> > For example, you can see how the Apache OpenDAL project utilizes it
> > here: https://test.pypi.org/project/opendal/
> >
> > This approach would provide an appropriate environment for nightly and
> > pre-release artifacts.
> >
> > Regards,
> > JB
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 12:25 PM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > +1 to what JB said.
> > >
> > > Want to emphasize that it's not only about the presence and
> > > correctness of the LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files, but also quite a
> > > few process and technical details.
> > > Following the rules [1] is also a hard requirement [2], including the
> > > implicit technical requirements including, but not limited to,
> > > signatures, checksums and the artifact contents.
> > > Especially for releases we, as the project, have to make sure to stage
> > > artifacts to start the vote, that every committer can verify all
> > > artifacts for the release vote and that exactly the same artifacts are
> > > eventually published.
> > > Even small technical and legal mistakes in the staged artifacts or of
> > > the vote itself have led to "failed" release votes in many ASF
> > > projects in the past.
> > >
> > > I am happy to help with that from the release automation side of things!
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
> > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/djfpls35shngokr4rkp3m9s71qs366w5
> > > [3] https://polaris.apache.org/community/release-guide/
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 8:48 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > I want to reiterate the importance of ensuring legal compliance before
> > > > publishing any public artifacts. As packages on PyPI are considered
> > > > release artifacts, we must confirm that the Python CLI adheres to all
> > > > ASF policies, especially regarding incubation status.
> > > >
> > > > I have addressed the LICENSE/NOTICE requirement on the GitHub project
> > > > board (https://github.com/orgs/apache/projects/540/views/1) by
> > > > assigning the relevant issue. We must also confirm that the Incubator
> > > > DISCLAIMER is included and that the package name and version clearly
> > > > reflect the incubating status.
> > > >
> > > > Legal correctness is a hard requirement and a necessary blocker before
> > > > we proceed with publishing any public artifacts. I will perform a
> > > > complete pass and review of these details.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 9:17 AM Honah J. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > I’d like to start a discussion about publishing the Apache Polaris
> > Python
> > > > > CLI to PyPI and providing nightly builds (test PyPi).
> > > > >
> > > > > The main goal is to make the CLI easier to install (pip install
> > > > > <package_name>) and to align its release and distribution process
> > with ASF
> > > > > guidelines. I’ve drafted a proposal [1] that outlines the key
> > requirements
> > > > > and the high-level release process if we include the Python CLI in
> > the next
> > > > > release. The proposal also covers how we might set up nightly builds
> > on
> > > > > Test PyPI for early testing.
> > > > >
> > > > > While some details can be finalized later, I’d like to first gather
> > > > > feedback on the overall direction — specifically, whether the
> > community
> > > > > agrees with publishing to PyPI and providing nightly builds.
> > > > >
> > > > > If there’s general agreement, I plan to open two separate [VOTE]
> > threads to
> > > > > formalize these decisions:
> > > > > 1. Whether to the Python CLI to PyPI
> > > > > 2. Whether to provide nightly build (publish to test PyPi)
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know what you think!
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gbKYnFftpq884GhJ59waHdfoQG6MrevVAVCspf3hbrk/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Jonas
> >

Reply via email to