Hi folks, We made great progress on the 1.0 release! Some blocker issues are fixed, or closed to be fixed!
> > - Task handling is incomplete (#774) > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/774> > > Eric will file a follow-up issue to make the drop-by-purge feature > disabled by default. We can remove the 1.0 blocker tag once the change was > in place. PR Set the default value of DROP WITH PURGE to false #1619 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1619> was merged. Thanks William! > > - Add CI for Python code ( > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1058>#1058), > > Need a volunteer to pick https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1096 up. Thanks Jonas for picking it up! Here is the new PR, https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1639. Please take a look if you can. *PR #1532 – Remove FILE storage as a default*: > This is a must-have for the 1.0 release. We can consider removing support > for FILE entirely in a future version. Adding a production-readiness > check would also be a valuable improvement. PR merged. Thanks Robert! Yufei On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:44 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks everyone for the productive discussion! We've made great progress > on cleaning up the Polaris 1.0 blockers. Here’s a quick summary: > > - Add CI for Python code ( > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1058>#1058), > > Need a volunteer to pick https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1096 up. > > - Generated files in regtests/client/python/polaris (#755) > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/755> > > We need a way to distribute the CLI tool. Thanks @Jean-Baptiste Onofré > <j...@nanthrax.net> for picking it up. > > - Polaris persistence concurrency issues (#777) > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/777> > > Closed as it's resolved by the JDBC persistence. > > - Task handling is incomplete (#774) > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/774> > > Eric will file a follow-up issue to make the drop-by-purge feature > disabled by default. We can remove the 1.0 blocker tag once the change was > in place. > > - Resources not properly closed, resource & memory leaks (#563) > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/563> > > No remaining cases found. Recommend closing. > > - Make Polaris safe against certain unparseable locations (#552) > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/552> > > It's something we want to resolve, but not a 1.0 blocker. > > - [BUG] Assumption that cache eviction does not happen (#544) > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/544> > > Entity TTL is in place. No longer a 1.0 blocker. > > > In addition to the 1.0 blocker issues, we also discussed several *1.0-critical > pull requests*: > > 1. > > *PR #1532 – Remove FILE storage as a default*: > This is a must-have for the 1.0 release. We can consider removing > support for FILE entirely in a future version. Adding a > production-readiness check would also be a valuable improvement. > 2. > > *Single binary bundle*: > Packaging all components into a single binary distribution is a > nice-to-have for 1.0 and would improve the user experience. > 3. > > *Distribute the Python CLI tool*: > It would be great to include the Python CLI tool as part of the 1.0 > release to make onboarding easier. > > > > Yufei > > > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 10:50 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> Hi Yufei >> >> Sorry if I was not clear in my previous email (too many flights and >> travels this week :)): I'm OK for a specific meeting for 1.0 (to >> discuss the "blocking" issues and propose a plan/update on the dev >> mailing list), my message is more "generally speaking". >> >> Thanks >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 8:36 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks Dmitri for chiming #777 and #552! >> > >> > I agreed PR 1532 is needed in 1.0. I'm OK with either merge >> > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1566 first, or iterate on PR >> 1532. >> > As I said in another email thread, adding an extra configure is not >> > necessary, but I'm fine with it. I will remove the "Request change" on >> PR >> > 1532. >> > >> > Thanks JB for the feedback. >> > >> > > As prerequisite (obviously), we should also complete >> > > 0.10.0-beta-incubating release to be sure we are good there before >> > > 1.0.0. >> > >> > +1 on this! >> > >> > I'm with you on avoiding unnecessary meetings. However, I think it's >> > important to have a separate discussion on the 1.0 release, given a lot >> of >> > blockers are never updated once filed. We need a way of moving forward. >> > >> > Yufei >> > >> > >> > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 7:32 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Yufei >> > > >> > > Thanks for your message ! >> > > >> > > It looks good to me. >> > > >> > > As prerequisite (obviously), we should also complete >> > > 0.10.0-beta-incubating release to be sure we are good there before >> > > 1.0.0. >> > > >> > > Just a comment: I think we should limit the number of community >> > > meetings. This topic should be typically discussed on the mailing list >> > > (as you are doing :)). >> > > The reasons why I'm not big fan of too much meeetings are: >> > > 1. No everyone in the community can join (due to timezone, not willing >> > > to speak/appear on call, ...) >> > > 2. It puts "pressure" on the community to attend ("if I'm not in the >> > > meeting, I'm not in the community" issue) >> > > 3. Due to 1 & 2, no decision should be taken in meetings, and even if >> > > meetings are recorded, it's not archive as mailing list >> > > So, I encourage meetings as community meet&greed, or to discuss about >> > > specific topics, not decision making topic. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Regards >> > > JB >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:38 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hi folks, >> > > > >> > > > Many users have been asking about the Polaris release, and I >> believe it's >> > > > critical to have a formal, production-ready 1.0 release ASAP. >> Thanks to >> > > the >> > > > community’s hard work, we’re very close with a few remaining >> blockers we >> > > > need to resolve. >> > > > >> > > > To keep things moving, I scheduled a community meeting for the 1.0 >> > > release >> > > > next Monday at 9 AM PST. At the same time, sharing all issues >> marked >> > > with >> > > > 1.0 blocker. We could resolve them here if possible. Feel free to >> chime >> > > in, >> > > > remove the blocker tag if you think it's not a blocker, or pick any >> up. >> > > > Thanks a lot in advance! >> > > > >> > > > Here is the list: >> > > > >> > > > - Add CI for Python code ( >> > > > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1058>#1058), >> > > > - Polaris persistence concurrency issues (#777) >> > > > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/777> >> > > > - Task handling is incomplete (#774) >> > > > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/774> >> > > > - Generated files in regtests/client/python/polaris (#755) >> > > > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/755> >> > > > - Resources not properly closed, resource & memory leaks >> (#563) >> > > > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/563> >> > > > - Make Polaris safe against certain unparseable locations >> (#552) >> > > > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/552> >> > > > - [BUG] Assumption that cache eviction does not happen (#544) >> > > > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/544> >> > > > >> > > > To make it more interactive, you can also comment on the google >> > > > spreadsheet here: >> > > > >> > > >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GyLvp2cdYwioOsBwszNWiphZt_IIdo4LIfsZBFV88mc/edit?usp=sharing >> > > > >> > > > Yufei >> > > >> >
