We could re-branch, but folks mentioned there are a few Python commits(like https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1810) we are not comfortable with having them in 1.0 branch.
Feel free to bring up a discussion for more PRs you think it's 1.0 blockers and needed in 1.0. Yufei On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:42 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Yufei, > > As discussed before, I think it is preferable to do the renames in / before > 1.0 because module names affect published Maven artifact names. > > For that matter, why not re-branch release/1.0.x from `main`? > > Thanks, > Dmitri. > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:37 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi JB and Dmitri, do we need https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1695 > > in > > 1.0? We used to agree on bringing it to 1.0 if it's ready, but I'm OK > with > > either way. > > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:31 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1616 was resolved by #1830, > > > #1834 and #1839. And these three commits are cherry-picked to 1.0 > branch > > > already. > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1881 was just resolved by > > #1889, > > > which has been cherry-picked to 1.0 branch. > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 12:02 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Yufei, et al. > > >> > > >> It looks like only two 1.0 blockers remain: > > >> > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1616 > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1881 > > >> > > >> Re: [1] is anybody actively working on it? > > >> > > >> Also, I believe a lot of relevant changes got merged recently... WDYT > > >> about > > >> re-branching `release/1.0.x` from `main` after addressing the > remaining > > >> issues? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Dmitri. > > >> > > >> On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 5:39 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 > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
