jbonofre commented on PR #3256: URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3256#issuecomment-3791276733
In regards of the last comments, and regarding #3256, I think we are pretty close to be able to move forward: 1. The Nessie dependency is not a blocker imho. Personally, I would prefer (as already said) to not have this dependency (and create required test classes), but that's my preference. I'm fine with Nessie test dep for now, and maybe an issue to track that it could be removed later. 2. There's a valid question about dedupe that should be clearly answer. 3. Also a question about file deletion rate limiter So, I think we should update #3256 first with: 1. Remove the Nessie dependency (e.g. #3513). 2. It would be great to provide feedback on the pending comments. I think we should be fine if we have these comments resolved. I think we can address that by having "specific topic" PRs. I like #3513 PR because it goes in the right direction to me. So, with #3513, we can update #3256 (assuming the pending comments will be resolved) and do a new reviews round. If I agree about questions regarding scope and dependencies, I don't think "scale" is a blocker now. We can start with something not optimal and work together (as a next step) to improve it. It's pretty presumptuous to think something is 200% fine at first shoot. Remember the JDBC support, it took some iterations to fix some performance issues. And that's the beauty of the community. Nothing can't be perfect at first run (I'm very humble in this regard). So, I would say that if #3256 works, we can address "scaling" questions in a follow up. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
