Not "labeled" as blockers, but two things to clarify:
1. The "[DISCUSS[ Spark Client jars: maven coordinates and shading" thread
2. Having the docs for a release appear in a URL containing "in-dev"
doesn't feel right.
The first one might have implications to the release?
On 23.06.25 13:30, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi folks,
I don't see any Issue or PR with the 1.0-blocker label.
I guess we are ready to cut 1.0.0 right ?
Regards
JB
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 8:12 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on documenting on the site, which I don't think it's a 1.0 blocker. It's
been added into the release notes[1].
[1].
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JDVdQraoEhOIv7agy7WzIuBQdW0_16jW-DBrnanuW7A/edit?tab=t.0
Yufei
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:08 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org>
wrote:
Thanks for the heads up, Prashant!
I agree that it was a good idea to pull Compaction Rollback into 1.0.
Do we want to document this feature, or just mention it in release notes?
Cheers,
Dmitri.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 1:17 PM Prashant Singh
<prashant.si...@snowflake.com.invalid> wrote:
Hey folks,
I want to thank the whole community for jumping in for the reviews of
Rollback Compaction on conflicts feature here
<
https://github.com/apache/polaris/commit/793cf086f1f784c36296b1ea75298a08ce608ef2
.
I am happy to share that it has now merged, since the 1.0 boat has not
sailed, I cherry-picked the feature to 1.0, it's a clean cherry-pick !
I believe it will strongly help in Apache Polaris adoption, and
sincerely thank everyone who participated !
Best,
Prashant Singh
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 9:13 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org>
wrote:
Hi All,
Posting here for visibility:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/0z30f3cfvm41hxlbxgp4fqdpv7mfgnv8
I opened that discussion thread about the new Spark Client plugin. My
concern is that the linked
PR looks like it may require changing out approach to how we publish
Maven
artifacts
for that client.... Therefore, I'd like to have some more clarity on
that
issue in order to prevent
suddenly changing Maven coordinates right after the 1.0 release.
Let's use the other thread for technical discussions. This message is
only
to flag potential
1.0 impact.
Thanks,
Dmitri.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:13 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote:
The rename commits(
https://github.com/apache/polaris/commit/ab228afa4d975faabb7aaf1e8abb0804f5b9d353
and
https://github.com/apache/polaris/commit/fccc51ab111b7ee1a0d3c8898e94b0c54bc73d80
)
have been cherry-picked to 1.0 branch.
Yufei
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:51 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com>
wrote:
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
