If the consensus is to have a different release cadences for the Polars helm chart and Polaris "server", I propose to move the helm charts to polaris-tools. One difference between the two repos is that the "main" repo eventually gets (semi) automatic releases that might get confused with rather manually driven helm-chart releases (it will have to use and check against Git tags and potentially version branches). Therefore the polaris-tools repo sounds more appropriate, because there are already multiple "sub projects".
Another reason to move the helm-charts to polaris-tools is that the helm-charts, if released independently, become suitable for multiple Polaris versions, which requires tests/CI against multiple Polaris versions. Letting pretty much every change to the "main" repository trigger CI for a potentially big helm-chart/Polaris test-matrix seems to be an unnecessary waste of CI time. In polaris-tools, all CI jobs are "scoped" to a particular "root path". Different release cadences also mean to maintain a "compatibility matrix", not immediately, but in the (near?) future. Thoughts? On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 9:08 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sounds good. I think Apache Airflow did the exact same thing by publishing > both Helm Chart source and Helm Chart binary package. We still need to > figure out a few things: > 1. What does the Helm Chart version look like? > 2. Publishing a version map between Helm Chart and Polaris server as the > part of Helm Chart doc. For example, Helm Chart version 1.2.0 works with > Polaris server 0.9.0, 1.0.0, and 1.1.0. > 3. What's the default docker image tag? I'd suggest using the latest > Polaris release version(e.g., 1.0.0-incubating) at the time the Helm Chart > was published. > 4. Location would be easy to decide, we can continue to publish it to > dist.apache.org as 1.0.0-incubating did. > > If we decide to release the Helm chart on its own cadence, we don't need a > nightly Helm Chart release at this time. > > Yufei > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:32 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > Hi > > > > It's not a problem for me to release "part" of Polaris like Helm chart. > > > > However, the release has to be "ASF valid", meaning that the release > > needs to include source distribution. Today, we don't have source > > distribution only for Helm chart (it's global source distribution > > including Helm sources). > > So, I propose to include a source tar gradle task in Helm chart (with > > signing and checksum). If we do that, no problem. I can take a crack > > on this :) > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 1:30 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > While testing the freshly-minted 1.0.0-incubating release, we noticed > > > something odd: the Polaris release has relational-jdbc persistence, yet > > the > > > Helm chart only understands the legacy eclipselink. Here is the issue: > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/2030. > > > > > > We previously made the decision to publish Helm Chart with Polaris src > > and > > > bin, check the ML thread: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/d1vf7xpn6nkzp8gbh417m8qb58tkpcqz. We may > > > revisit the approach. I think it makes more sense to release the Helm > > chart > > > on its own cadence. Not all Polaris users need Helm charts, plus Helm > > chart > > > tweaking happens commonly between Polaris server releases. WDYT? > > > > > > Meanwhile, we can start to release the nightly Helm Chart as a quick > > > solution for any users trying the new release with JDBC backend. Thoughts > > > and volunteers for this one? > > > > > > Yufei > >
