I'm not sure I follow you, Eric. 0.10.0 or pre-1.0 will be cut from main, for sure.
It's also possible to cut 0.9.1 from the 0.9.x branch. It's pretty classic for maintenance release, we do that in almost all Apache projects. So, my proposal is to cut 0.10.0 or pre-1.0 (both versions are ok for me) from main (creating the 0.10.x branch from main at the time of the first release prep). Yufei proposed also to have 0.9.1 with binary distributions from the 0.9.x branch (I don't see a huge value here but why not). Regards JB On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 8:18 AM Eric Maynard <eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wasn’t that the intent of naming the first release 0.9.0? > > It seems wrong to cut a new version not from main > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 12:16 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > Hi Yufei > > > > Yeah, pre-1.0 or 1.0-alpha is OK for me. Good idea. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:59 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation, JB! In that case, we may focus on 0.10.0 > > only. > > > How about a name like pre-1.0, which clarifies that it's a release mainly > > > to test out something for 1.0.0? > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 11:33 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Yufei > > > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > > > What about doing both ? > > > > - 0.9.1 would be the same as 0.9.0 but with binary distributions > > > > - 0.10.0 would be based on main > > > > > > > > The reason I would like to do that is because the binary distributions > > > > are not the same (the framework used is not the same). > > > > In order to "prepare" 1.0.0, 0.10.0 would be welcome (binary > > > > distributions will be "close" between 0.10.0 and 1.0.0). > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:21 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
