Using 1.0.0-preview1 implies the scope of 1.0 is well-defined... but my impression is that it is not so.
I think the 0.10.0 version is clear enough that it comes before 1.0 and does not have any implied scope. While 0.10.0 is in progress, I believe we need to review the scope of 1.0 as a community on the dev list. I might have missed previous discussions, but I do not recall a consensus on what goes into 1.0 :) WDYT? Thanks, Dmitri. On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 9:49 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Usually, at Apache, we have two kind of versioning for "pre-release": > - 1.0.0.M1 and 1.0.0.RC1 (Apache Superset, Apache Camel, Apache Karaf, > Apache Cassandra, ... used this versioning) > - 1.0.0-preview1 (Apache Spark, Apache Flink, ... used this versioning) > > For "clarity" for our community and users, I propose to use Apache > Polaris (incubating) 1.0.0-preview1. > > Any objections? > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 2:37 PM Kamesh Sampath > <kamesh.samp...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Shall we name it like 1.0-pre? That aligns with common pattern across > many opensource projects, another thought is to make that more semver > friendly > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 11:59:27 PM > > To: dev@polaris.apache.org <dev@polaris.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Preparing 0.10.0 release including binary > distributions > > > > 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhub.docker.com%2Fr%2Fapache%2Fpolaris&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7f8be0632d94e45161d08dd65214bfa%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638777915862430638%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NVaaj1zJTdNVzm3bJTHyGuoFFXNjZ0KcOFwUK6T%2FXJc%3D&reserved=0 > <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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpolaris%2Fpull%2F1170&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc7f8be0632d94e45161d08dd65214bfa%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638777915862447357%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Kj2ICW5RyNQiHkJT%2Bk2QbhRDzzfRCmofyunCFTFcPjk%3D&reserved=0 > <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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
