That would be fantastic, Robert! I know that the AppRunner, Iceberg Catalog Migrator, and the MCP Server would benefit from this greatly!
Go community, Adam On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 7:07 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Thanks so much for driving this! The direction looks great, having a > unified but tool-agnostic release flow will make things much smoother for > everyone. > > Excited to see the detailed proposal and happy to help test things out once > it’s ready. > > Yufei > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 10:26 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The ability to release each tool individually is a great improvement! > > > > I agree that each tool should have its specific method for handling > > release resources. > > > > Thanks, and I look forward to seeing the detailed proposal. > > > > Regards, > > JB > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 3:23 AM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I think there is a way to have release automation for polaris-tools > > > similar to the release automation for the polaris repo. > > > > > > UX change TL;DR: Start drafting a release with two input parameters: > > > 1. Tool name > > > 2. Tool version > > > All other steps remain the same as for the polaris repo. > > > > > > The major implementation difference is that the polaris-tools > > > workflows become agnostic to which artifacts a specific tool builds > > > (Maven stuff, tarballs/zip, Python stuff, Docker images, Helm charts). > > > > > > The effort for each tool would be pretty low, a few very simple > > > tool-specific shell scripts. > > > > > > I will come up with a more detailed proposal soon. > > > > > > Robert > > >
