Also the last PPMC member's agreement on thread[1] happened 5 days ago, which passed the lazy consensus window. But I agreed it's nice to conclude a thread.
The consensus in that thread was to skip the 0.10.0 release. >From my POV an agreement to skip 0.10.0 does not mean that the scope for 1.0 is set and agreed upon. What I'm asking for is proactively engaging with the community before executing technical actions for a new release as opposed to informing after actions are taken. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/8kx1mjg7hsq09z3rlmf77g4trs5p9xrh Thanks, Dmitri. On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 6:20 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > The branch name is "1.0.x". > > Where is this agreement recorded? > > Discussed multiple times with JB last Thursday(6/5/2025) and this > Monday(6/9/2025), we agreed to consider it as a nice-to-have instead of a > blocker. > > As a matter of best practice, given the previous related discussion thread > > [1], it would have been nice to conclude it with a message about starting > > the 1.0 release process before actually cutting the branch. > > We got consensus on thread[1]. The 1.0 release was also prepared way before > the thread. We will kick off 1.0 release even if 0.10 is not canceled. JB > and I discussed the parallel releasing option for both versions. Also the > last PPMC member's agreement on thread[1] happened 5 days ago, which passed > the lazy consensus window. But I agreed it's nice to conclude a thread. > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/8kx1mjg7hsq09z3rlmf77g4trs5p9xrh > > Yufei > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 2:33 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I cut the 1.0.x branch yesterday morning. > > > > > > As a matter of best practice, given the previous related discussion > thread > > [1], it would have been nice to conclude it with a message about starting > > the 1.0 release process before actually cutting the branch. > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/8kx1mjg7hsq09z3rlmf77g4trs5p9xrh > > > > Thanks, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 4:33 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks everyone for the contribution. We've finally resolved all > > > blockers[1]. I cut the 1.0.x branch yesterday morning. Will only cherry > > > pick bug fixes and license related commits to this branch starting now. > > > > > > [1]. PR1695 is labeled with 1.0 blocker, but we agreed that it's a > > > best-to-have instead of a blocker per offline discussion, > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1695. > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:21 PM Eric Maynard <eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 to making 801 a blocker. > > > > > > > > Based on Alex's comments in 1799, it looks like the rotation is only > > > > happening in JdbcMetastoreManagerFactory? If so, I think we have a > very > > > > simple fix in PR#1804 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1804>. > > > > > > > > --EM > > > > > > > > > >
