That location is fine, although I do not really see why contributing to Persistence should be any different from contributing to other areas of Polaris code.
Cheers, Dmitri. On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 7:03 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dmitri, we could place it along with existing contribution guidelines, > https://polaris.apache.org/community/contributing-guidelines/, but I'm > open > to suggestions. > > Yufei > > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 2:10 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi Yufei, > > > > I posted some comments in the doc. > > > > Where do you intend to publish it? > > > > Do we need a special process for Persistence code contributions on top of > > our general contribution guidelines? > > > > Thanks, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 4:30 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > After meeting with a few folks from the community(JB, Dmitri, Keith, > > > Russell, etc), I put together a short guidance doc for anyone who wants > > to > > > add a new persistence back-end (think DynamoDB, Cassandra, etc.) to > > > Polaris. The goal is to keep our persistence layer clean and pluggable > > > while avoiding surprises in the core codebase. > > > > > > Highlights > > > > > > - Stay on the public APIs > > > - No business-logic bleed-through > > > - UnsupportedOperationException is okay when new API methods appear > > and > > > an older impl hasn’t caught up yet. > > > > > > Where does the code live? > > > > > > - Preferred: its own repo (polaris-dynamodb, etc.) to keep the main > > repo > > > slim. > > > - If you must: a single self-contained module in the main repo, > which > > > needs justification and zero cross-module leakage. > > > - Needing API tweaks? Post the proposal here first and let’s vote if > > > it’s a big change. > > > > > > The full draft is here: > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEQ3f1XXKG_H7QFI-LN8lEkVljXoNNl2Bx4HVmj3UEI/edit?usp=sharing > > > , > > > it’s only a page and a half. > > > > > > What I’m asking for > > > > > > - Does the separation-of-concerns stance feel right? > > > - Are the API-change steps clear enough? > > > > > > I’ll fold in feedback and post a final version next week. Thanks in > > advance > > > for the eyes! > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > >
