Hi Kenneth,
Slightly off topic to this thread, but you might be interested in the
"evolution" PR [1] and the related dev email [2] from the "user side". Any
feedback is welcome.
[1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1890
[2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/c0sk6hmtz9l4vs0mjc21wvlpblqhgx7r
T
My team has been tracking the 0.9 and 0.10 branches. They haven't
diverged too much from their branching points off main. I am good with
pruning the branches to focus usage to current versions.
Kenneth
On 6/16/25 07:57, Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote:
Dropping the 0.9 release branch, and keeping t
Dropping the 0.9 release branch, and keeping the tag (of course) SGTM.
Cheers,
Dmitri.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:54 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> That's a good point.
>
> Rethinking about that, if we keep the tag, I think we are good to
> remove release/0.9.x branch (and the "old" 0.9 rc ta
That's a good point.
Rethinking about that, if we keep the tag, I think we are good to
remove release/0.9.x branch (and the "old" 0.9 rc tags).
Regards
JB
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 3:57 PM Robert Stupp wrote:
>
> I've deleted all branches except the 0.9 one.
>
> Do we really maintain 0.9? It's qu
I've deleted all branches except the 0.9 one.
Do we really maintain 0.9? It's quite old and we said it's a source-only
release.
On 13.06.25 14:21, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi
I agree to delete release/0.10 branch (as it's not used anymore).
However, I would keep release/0.9 for now as we
Hi
I agree to delete release/0.10 branch (as it's not used anymore).
However, I would keep release/0.9 for now as we did a release on this
branch, so we could have a request from the community to do a new
release (0.9.1, etc), even if I don't think it will happen :)
Regards
JB
On Fri, Jun 13, 2
Deleting the release/0.9+10 branches is fine for me.
Any objections to delete those?
On 13.06.25 03:35, Michael Collado wrote:
I have no objections. Any of my old branches are there purely accidentally.
Mike
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 1:48 PM Yufei Gu wrote:
+1, I'm all for keeping the code
I have no objections. Any of my old branches are there purely accidentally.
Mike
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 1:48 PM Yufei Gu wrote:
> +1, I'm all for keeping the code base and repo clean. Deleted
> branch yufei-test-1.0.x and 1.0.x. I think we can also delete
> branch "release/0.10.x" as the 0.10
+1, I'm all for keeping the code base and repo clean. Deleted
branch yufei-test-1.0.x and 1.0.x. I think we can also delete
branch "release/0.10.x" as the 0.10 release was cancelled.
Yufei
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 8:30 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I deleted my "old" branches. Sorry a
Hi
I deleted my "old" branches. Sorry about that.
Agree to keep the "branches clean".
Regards
JB
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:26 AM Robert Stupp wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I noticed that there are a bunch of stale branches and branches that
> look like experiments in the Polaris GitHub repository
>
I think we should indeed keep the number of branches in the main repo to a
minimum (as Robert suggested).
Forks are probably sufficient for PRs and experimental work.
Cheers,
Dmitri.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 4:26 AM Robert Stupp wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I noticed that there are a bunch of stale br
Hi guys,
I noticed that there are a bunch of stale branches and branches that
look like experiments in the Polaris GitHub repository
https://github.com/apache/polaris/ (see below).
Generally, I think only the technically necessary branches should be in
the Polaris GH repo. Those are: main, a
12 matches
Mail list logo
