I read through the PR, but I’m a little confused what the dependency in question is here. Surely, the project should be mindful not to break downstream dependencies of Polaris. But it sounds like the contention here is around a dependency on unmerged code?
If this is the case, that deployment is not depending on Polaris. In my view if it depends on particular configs not present in OSS Polaris, it would be best served by taking advantage of some of the mechanisms available for adding custom configs on top of the ones in OSS Polaris. —EM On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 10:53 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > This discussion stems from PR [3135], where having particular config names > was flagged as a concern [1]. > > While I agree that aligning configuration names across all Polaris code > modules is a worthy goal, in this particular case it is complicated by > downstream dependencies that already exist on those config names. > > The NoSQL code contributed in this PR is already in use in private > environments. At the same time it is being contributed to Polaris in the > hole that it would be beneficial to a wide community. > > Making the requested config changes up front would complicate > re-integration of the contributed code from Polaris `main` into existing > downstream projects. > > Therefore, I ask the community to allow the existing config names to be > merged. > > If there are strong concerns about the existing config names, I propose to > open GH issues for them and address later when backward compatibility can > be handled in OSS code for all use cases. This can probably be done after > some reasonable delay to allow us to first re-integrate the code from > `main` downstream. > > Note that addressing config renames with backward compatibility directly in > [3135] would complicate the code and make reviewing it harder. The current > PR reflects the code that has already been put to practice. > > We have an existing situation where a downstream project's requirements for > keeping `polaris-code` java compatibility at version 11 are respected [2] > despite having no reasons for holding that module's java version back from > the perspective of binary Polaris Server distributions. > > In general, I believe it is important for the success of the project to > take downstream builds into consideration as well as users of the binary > distribution. > > Please share your thoughts on this matter. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3135#discussion_r2558515915 > > [2] > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/discussions/100#discussioncomment-10267097 > > [3135] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3135 > > Thanks, > Dmitri. >
