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
