Hi all, Quick update on the 1.6.0 branch cut:
- Adnan's requested release workflow fix, #4626, has now landed on main. Thanks Adnan and reviewers. - The current main HEAD is: InMemoryBufferEventListener: fix cache removal logic and flaky test (#4677 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4677>) - I checked the current HEAD and the required checks are green. I have not seen any other PRs called out on this thread as must-have blockers for 1.6.0. The one remaining release-process PR I am watching is #4650, which documents/moves the dist dev -> dist release SVN steps to a manual PMC action after the vote. It is mergeable and green, but still pending review/merge. If #4650 lands shortly, I plan to use the main commit immediately after #4650 as the final 1.6.0 cutoff. Otherwise, I plan to proceed from the current green main HEAD above and keep coordinating the manual post-vote steps with PMC help. Please call out any objections or must-have PRs soon; otherwise I will proceed with preparing the 1.6.0 release branch/RC from that cutoff. Thanks, -ej On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:44 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks to both of you for the review and updates. I will perform a pass on > the PR now so we can move forward with the 1.6.0 release as planned. > > Regards, > JB > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 6:33 PM EJ Wang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks Adnan! this makes sense to get in before the branch cut. The > > workflow placement looks good to me, and updating the superseded > versioned > > docs during release publication should prevent old binary distribution > > links from breaking after cleanup. > > > > I left one small question about preserving the incubator archive path for > > older incubating release docs. Otherwise LGTM. > > > > -ej > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 4:00 PM Adnan Hemani via dev < > > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I would say, we should wait for this PR to land before we branch cut. > > This > > > will help us solve an issue we've had for a while that no one reported: > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4626/changes. If we don't take > > this > > > PR into 1.6.0, then fixing this issue will likely have to wait until > > 1.7.0 > > > - which keeps all historical release links broken in the meantime. > > > > > > Best, > > > Adnan Hemani > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:16 PM EJ Wang <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, JB! Reviewed and approved. > > > > > > > > All, > > > > I have not seen any specific must-have PRs or release blockers called > > out > > > > for 1.6.0. > > > > > > > > Unless there are objections, I plan to use the current main branch > > after > > > > the release workflow/documentation update in #4650 lands as the > cutoff > > > > point for 1.6.0. Concretely, I will cut the release branch from the > > main > > > > commit immediately after #4650 is merged. > > > > > > > > If anyone has a must-have PR that should be included in 1.6.0, please > > > call > > > > it out on this thread by <date/time>. Otherwise, I will proceed with > > that > > > > cutoff and start preparing the first RC. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -ej > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > Following this discussion, I updated the release process and > > > > documentation: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4650 > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 11:02 PM EJ Wang < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Dmitri, Yufei, and JB. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will keep moving forward with the June 26 target then. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks JB and Yufei for offering to help with the PMC-only > > post-vote > > > > > steps. > > > > > > I will coordinate with you when we get closer to the > > RC/vote/publish > > > > > > stages. > > > > > > > > > > > > For #4579, I will add it to the release tracker and watch the > > related > > > > > PRs. > > > > > > Given the discussion so far, I will treat it as something we > should > > > try > > > > > to > > > > > > resolve before cutting the RC, but not necessarily a hard blocker > > > > unless > > > > > > others feel strongly that it should block 1.6.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -ej > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 9:43 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for filing the issue. It's great to have it. I'm OK to > > > > consider > > > > > > 4579 > > > > > > > either a blocker or non-blocker, as we have made releases > without > > > it > > > > > > > multiple times. I can also help with PMC duty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 10:48 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi EJ, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This plan sounds good to me. Thanks for volunteering! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have created https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/4579 > , > > as > > > > the > > > > > > > > release workflow and documentation need to be updated. I am > > > > currently > > > > > > > > working on this, and it should be considered a release > blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, you will need the assistance of a PMC member to > > > > > complete > > > > > > > > the post-vote release steps. I will be happy to help you with > > > that > > > > > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 9:16 PM EJ Wang < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to volunteer as the release manager for Apache > > > > Polaris > > > > > > > > 1.6.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am thinking about targeting Friday, June 26, 2026 for the > > > > > release, > > > > > > > > > assuming the community agrees and we do not have blocking > > > issues > > > > by > > > > > > > then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To start planning, could folks please share if there are > any: > > > > > > > > > - release blockers for 1.6.0 > > > > > > > > > - must-have PRs that should be included > > > > > > > > > - timing concerns around the proposed date > > > > > > > > > - areas where you would like to help validate the release > > > > candidate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on the previous 1.5.0 release flow, my rough plan is: > > > > > > > > > - collect blockers and must-have PRs over the next couple > of > > > > weeks > > > > > > > > > - start converging the scope around mid-June > > > > > > > > > - prepare the changelog/release notes and cut the first RC > > > around > > > > > > June > > > > > > > 20 > > > > > > > > > - keep the vote open for at least 72 hours > > > > > > > > > - publish and announce the release around June 26 if the > vote > > > > > passes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will also keep an eye on release workflow/artifact > > > validation, > > > > > > > > including > > > > > > > > > source artifacts, Maven artifacts, Docker images, Helm > chart, > > > > > Python > > > > > > > > > package, and the website/downloads page. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if this timeline sounds reasonable, or > if > > > > there > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > concerns I should account for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > -ej > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
