I agree that a simple docker pull is a huge advantage to users. However, in that case we should probably promote the Dockerfile to a normal production artifact (it is currently under /regtests and has test-specific code).
Cheers, Dmitri. On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 4:37 PM Alex Dutra <alex.du...@dremio.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi JB, > > That's a very good idea. > > Regarding Docker images, I think it would be great if users could just > "docker pull apache/polaris" and start using Polaris, as opposed to having > to manually build the images. > > However, a Docker image with just in-memory persistence is likely useless > for anything else than prototyping. I raised the question a while ago about > how we would handle official images with support for data sources. I don't > think we decided on that yet. I am fine with the idea of publishing just > in-memory images for now, but once the work on persistence is done, we'd > need to have a more professional stance on image publishing. > > Then there is the question of the Helm chart. I think it is important to > publish Helm charts as well. Do you want me to drive that part of the > process? It could be done as part of 0.10.0, or for the next binary release > if the timeline is too tight. > > Thanks, > > Alex > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:22 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think it's a good idea. Thanks JB. > > > > If it's only for testing binary distributions. Can we base it on 0.9.0 so > > that we can give users a clear message that everything else is the same > as > > 0.9.0 except it provides binary distribution? > > This is mainly to make life easier for OSS users as well as developers. > > 1. In case of bug fix on 0.9.0, we can directly do it in 0.10.1. The > > community doesn't have to maintain two branches for bug fix. > > 2. Users don't have to choose between 0.9.0 and 0.10.0, as they are the > > same. If they need binary distribution, they just go with 0.10.0. > > Otherwise, either one is fine. > > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 1:02 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Dmitri > > > > > > https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/polaris > > > > > > It's empty for now :) > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 8:56 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > As we have a Polaris repo on Docker HUB [...] > > > > > > > > What do we currently push there? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:47 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The binary distributions are everything we distribute/publish. I > > would > > > > > focus on archive (tar.gz/zip), and jar files. > > > > > As we have a Polaris repo on Docker HUB, I will also include docker > > > image > > > > > check. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 1:53 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > di...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's a good idea. Thanks for taking care of this, JB! > > > > > > > > > > > > What is included in the binary distribution? Just jars or docker > > too? > > > > > > > > > > > > Side note: we should probably adjust PR #1070 [1] since the first > > > release > > > > > > number is going to be different. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1170 > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 5:58 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > j...@nanthrax.net> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are working on the 1.0.0 release, with a lot of new features > > and > > > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One important change between 0.9.0 and 1.0.0 is the publication > > of > > > the > > > > > > > binary distributions, with all related requirements > > > (LICENSE/NOTICE, > > > > > > > etc). > > > > > > > I'm working on the LICENSE/NOTICE and binary distributions > > > publication. > > > > > > > Considering the time we needed to complete the 0.9.0 release, I > > > think > > > > > > > it would be great to "anticipate" a little before 1.0.0. It > would > > > > > > > allow us to "accelerate" on the 1.0.0 release and beyond. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose the 0.10.0 release, as an > "intermediate" > > > > > > > release. I would like to prepare this release by the end of > next > > > week, > > > > > > > creating the 0.10.x branch (based on the main branch) on > > Saturday, > > > > > > > March 22 and cutting the 0.10.0 release on Monday, March 24. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
