Hi everyone, @Dmitri and @Robert, are you fine with 1.0.0-preview1 ?
I would like to move forward on this front ;) Thanks, Regards JB On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 12:08 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Agreed with JB that 1.0-pre makes sense. My concern with 0.10.0 is that it > could mislead users into thinking an arbitrary cut from main qualifies as a > stable release. > > > Yufei > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 10:30 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > It depends. For instance, Spark 4.0-preview started more than a year > > ago, and the scope changed. > > If we communicate clearly it's just a previous and the scope can still > > change, it's acceptable. > > > > I did the same on multiple projects: Camel 4.0.0.M1, M2, RC1, RC2, > > were different in content. > > > > I would separate the discussions in two parts: > > 1. Should we have a discussion about what will be included in 1.0 ? > > Maybe yes, based on what we have in the GitHub Milestone. I would > > propose to start a separate thread about that. > > 2. For preview release, as the idea is: > > 2.1. Do a preparation release from main, different from 0.9.0, > > including binary artifacts. > > 2.2. Verify all legal aspects and the release is OK for the IPMC > > So, 0.10.0 or 1.0.0-preview work. Personally, I consider 1.0.0-preview > > more meaningful because, without considering the scope/content, it's > > really what it is: a preview release to test our process and legal > > aspects. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 4:39 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
