Thanks for your thoughts, Yufei! What you wrote resonates with me.
I'd like to clarify, though, whether your points apply only to configuration or to java code as well. WDYT? Thanks, Dmitri. On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 4:06 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Dmitri for the detailed context. I want to offer a different > perspective. > > While I understand the desire to avoid churn for a private downstream > deployment, I’m concerned that merging the PR as-is purely to accommodate a > non-OSS downstream project sets a precedent that is risky for Polaris. If > we adopt this pattern, any private downstream project could effectively > promote its internal configuration choices into upstream simply by > upstreaming code without aligning to Polaris conventions first. > > For the long-term health of the project, I think we need to maintain > consistency and avoid creating special cases that diverge from established > user-faced conventions(e.g., config naming patterns here). The upstream > should remain the place where common conventions are defined, not the place > where downstream decisions dictate upstream behavior. > > To avoid blocking this PR while still maintaining our standards, one > possible approach is: > 1. Align the config names now to the Polaris conventions, as reviewers > requested. > 2. Let the downstream project map or override its own existing config names > suggested by Eric. > > This keeps Polaris consistent, avoids setting an undesirable precedent, and > still gives the downstream project a clear migration path without requiring > OSS to inherit private naming decisions. > > Just my two cents. Happy to discuss further. > > Yufei > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 5:12 PM Eric Maynard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I see. By extending the configuration store, I believe that project > should > > be able to quite easily map between its own configs and the ones that > > eventually get merged in Polaris. Or to add its own configs. > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 5:04 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > > > This situation here is that some code moves from a private downstream > > > project to Polaris. Some of the related config names are already in use > > > downstream. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 7:35 PM Eric Maynard <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
