Hi Yun

My initial plan was to draft the release today during EU hours, so that we
have 3 full working days before Thanksgiving.  I know that quite a few
people in the community are based in the US and I wanted to be mindful of
that.

In the e-mail thread about beta label removal [1], it seems that we do not
have consensus yet.  And I would like your opinion on how to best move
forward with this.  Would you be ok if we proceed without the `beta` label
removal PR, in order to unblock the 1.3.0 release?

[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/ls7ot4ywb2js6tgrrxptxl0v6n4nr1vh

Thanks

--

Pierre


On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 8:09 PM yun zou <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Pierre,
>
> Thanks for mentioning the removal of the beta label for Generic Table! I’ve
> put together PR [3096], and it would be awesome if we could get it into the
> 1.3.0 release.
>
> [3096]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3096
>
> Best Regards,
> Yun
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 8:27 AM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >  Do we want to include KMS support [1424] into 1.3.0?
> >
> > That would be great!
> > Just not so much time left until the release is cut (following the
> > release train model).
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 4:30 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Do we want to include KMS support [1424] into 1.3.0?
> > >
> > > I do not have a strong opinion, mentioning this only because the PR
> seems
> > > to be pretty close to completion.
> > >
> > > [1424] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1424
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Dmitri.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 5:23 AM Pierre Laporte <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello folks
> > > >
> > > > I noticed that the changelog currently does not contain any entry for
> > the
> > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > 1. OPA integration
> > > > 2. Apache Ozone integration
> > > > 3. --no-sts CLI enhancement
> > > > 4. Multiple catalog federation commits (SigV4 and credential vending)
> > > >
> > > > I am going to open a PR to update the changelog with those.  Please
> > let me
> > > > know if I missed anything.
> > > >
> > > > Also, there is currently a dev ML thread about removing the beta
> label
> > for
> > > > Generic Tables for 1.3.0 [1].  I believe that although this only
> > affects
> > > > the documentation, we need the change to the site/ directory to be
> > included
> > > > in the release tag.  So this means that we want to wait for this to
> be
> > done
> > > > before releasing 1.3.0.  Would it be possible to get confirmation for
> > this?
> > > >
> > > > 1: https://lists.apache.org/thread/4rtbn6jlxyw92z3jvzx847pfj92vcf0f
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Pierre
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 8:15 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Robert,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for clarifying the ATR context, that helps a lot. It’s great
> > to
> > > > hear
> > > > > that Polaris’ semi-automated release process could complement ATR’s
> > > > > efforts. I agree it’d be valuable for us to collaborate and share
> > > > learnings
> > > > > as both projects evolve.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the generic table topic, let’s start a focused thread to
> discuss.
> > Here
> > > > > is a slack thread about Delta table use cases,
> > > > >
> > https://apache-polaris.slack.com/archives/C084QSKD6S2/p1762203273837449.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yufei
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 6:25 AM Robert Stupp <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just to clarify: ATR is currently available for internal ASF
> > feedback
> > > > > > only. The project is in alpha development and subject to
> > significant
> > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > There is a test instance to "play" with the ATR release process.
> > > > > > I think the Polaris project should really help the ATR project
> and
> > I'm
> > > > > > sure that Polaris' (semi) automated release process would work
> fine
> > > > > > with ATR.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Generic tables have documented limitations [1], so I think we
> > should
> > > > > > have a discussion about how the feature can be evolved.
> > > > > > It would be interesting to know what users think about it, but I
> > > > > > couldn't find any user feedback on generic tables on the mailing
> > list
> > > > > > or in GH issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The JDBC schema compatibility is already handled in the code
> > itself,
> > > > > > at least that's my understanding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last but not least, thanks Pierre for being the release manager
> for
> > > > > 1.3.0!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/f056e22f7f3a7c53e233bef1b88d204d6a8e4d79/site/content/in-dev/unreleased/generic-table.md?plain=1#L162-L169
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 10:18 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks Pierre for volunteering! +1 to giving the ATR tool a
> try.
> > It’d
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > great to see how far we can automate the process. BTW, could
> > anyone
> > > > > share
> > > > > > > information about the Apache ATR tool? I remember we used to
> > work on
> > > > a
> > > > > > tool
> > > > > > > dedicated to Polaris. I assume Apache ATR is a different tool.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One thing to watch for in 1.3 is whether we want to remove the
> > beta
> > > > > label
> > > > > > > for Generic Table. The feature has been stable for a while and
> is
> > > > used
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > multiple integrations. We've postponed it for 2 releases(1.1
> and
> > > > 1.2).
> > > > > > That
> > > > > > > of course deserves a separate discussion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's also worth monitoring Postgres DB schema changes between
> > 1.2 and
> > > > > > 1.3,
> > > > > > > since even small updates could break upgrades. We need to
> handle
> > > > those
> > > > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Otherwise, it looks good to start planning the branch cut and
> RC
> > > > > timing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yufei
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 9:08 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <
> > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for volunteering, Pierre!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for the ATR tool, I think it would be great to give it a
> try
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > Polaris 1.3.0. If it becomes too much of an overhead we can
> > always
> > > > go
> > > > > > back
> > > > > > > > to our usual release process. I think we're not required to
> > release
> > > > > > via ATR
> > > > > > > > if/when we start a trial :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > Dmitri.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 3:50 AM Pierre Laporte <
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I would like to volunteer for that so that I can run the
> > > > workflows
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > verify everything is in order for an automated release.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am not certain how this will play with the ATR tool.  It
> > might
> > > > be
> > > > > > too
> > > > > > > > > early to sign up for that.  Wdyt?
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pierre
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 5:33 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think it's time to start thinking/prep 1.3.0-incubating
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Who would volunteer to be release manager ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think it would be great to join the Apache ATR tool. I
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > happy to help the release manager in this regard.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thoughts ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > JB
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>

Reply via email to