Hello folks I noticed that the changelog currently does not contain any entry for the following:
1. OPA integration 2. Apache Ozone integration 3. --no-sts CLI enhancement 4. Multiple catalog federation commits (SigV4 and credential vending) I am going to open a PR to update the changelog with those. Please let me know if I missed anything. Also, there is currently a dev ML thread about removing the beta label for Generic Tables for 1.3.0 [1]. I believe that although this only affects the documentation, we need the change to the site/ directory to be included in the release tag. So this means that we want to wait for this to be done before releasing 1.3.0. Would it be possible to get confirmation for this? 1: https://lists.apache.org/thread/4rtbn6jlxyw92z3jvzx847pfj92vcf0f Thanks -- Pierre On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 8:15 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Thanks for clarifying the ATR context, that helps a lot. It’s great to hear > that Polaris’ semi-automated release process could complement ATR’s > efforts. I agree it’d be valuable for us to collaborate and share learnings > as both projects evolve. > > On the generic table topic, let’s start a focused thread to discuss. Here > is a slack thread about Delta table use cases, > https://apache-polaris.slack.com/archives/C084QSKD6S2/p1762203273837449. > > Yufei > > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 6:25 AM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Just to clarify: ATR is currently available for internal ASF feedback > > only. The project is in alpha development and subject to significant > > changes. > > There is a test instance to "play" with the ATR release process. > > I think the Polaris project should really help the ATR project and I'm > > sure that Polaris' (semi) automated release process would work fine > > with ATR. > > > > Generic tables have documented limitations [1], so I think we should > > have a discussion about how the feature can be evolved. > > It would be interesting to know what users think about it, but I > > couldn't find any user feedback on generic tables on the mailing list > > or in GH issues. > > > > The JDBC schema compatibility is already handled in the code itself, > > at least that's my understanding. > > > > Last but not least, thanks Pierre for being the release manager for > 1.3.0! > > > > Robert > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/f056e22f7f3a7c53e233bef1b88d204d6a8e4d79/site/content/in-dev/unreleased/generic-table.md?plain=1#L162-L169 > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 10:18 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Thanks Pierre for volunteering! +1 to giving the ATR tool a try. It’d > be > > > great to see how far we can automate the process. BTW, could anyone > share > > > information about the Apache ATR tool? I remember we used to work on a > > tool > > > dedicated to Polaris. I assume Apache ATR is a different tool. > > > > > > One thing to watch for in 1.3 is whether we want to remove the beta > label > > > for Generic Table. The feature has been stable for a while and is used > in > > > multiple integrations. We've postponed it for 2 releases(1.1 and 1.2). > > That > > > of course deserves a separate discussion. > > > > > > It's also worth monitoring Postgres DB schema changes between 1.2 and > > 1.3, > > > since even small updates could break upgrades. We need to handle those > > > carefully. > > > > > > Otherwise, it looks good to start planning the branch cut and RC > timing. > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 9:08 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for volunteering, Pierre! > > > > > > > > As for the ATR tool, I think it would be great to give it a try with > > > > Polaris 1.3.0. If it becomes too much of an overhead we can always go > > back > > > > to our usual release process. I think we're not required to release > > via ATR > > > > if/when we start a trial :) > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 3:50 AM Pierre Laporte <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I would like to volunteer for that so that I can run the workflows > > and > > > > > verify everything is in order for an automated release. > > > > > > > > > > I am not certain how this will play with the ATR tool. It might be > > too > > > > > early to sign up for that. Wdyt? > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Pierre > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 5:33 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's time to start thinking/prep 1.3.0-incubating > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who would volunteer to be release manager ? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be great to join the Apache ATR tool. I would be > > > > > > happy to help the release manager in this regard. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
