Hi folks,
I need two pending PRs to start the release:
1. https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1384 (blocker)
2. https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1411 (not blocker, but we
should have it for our end users)
Can you please take a look ?
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 9:07 AM
Hi everyone,
We have two pending PRs to merge before cutting 0.10.0-beta release:
- https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1370
- https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1292
As a reminder, once 0.10.0-beta is out, we are starting our time boxed
releases cycle: one release every 3 or 4 weeks. The
Hi
Quick update about the release prep:
1. LICENSE/NOTICE are now included in the distributions (I will do a
pass just before the release to check the versions)
2. I opened another PR to include "clean" LICENSE/NOTICE in our
distributed artifacts (on Maven):
https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/
>
> > > > > > > While 0.10.0 is in progress, I believe we need to review the
> > scope
> > > > of 1.0
> > > > > > > as a community on the dev list. I might have missed previous
> > > > discussions,
> > > > &g
do not recall a consensus on what goes into 1.0 :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Dmitri.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 9:
Hi everyone
I opened the PR to fix LICENSE/NOTICE in our polaris server and admin
distributions:
https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1258
I'm now verifying LICENSE/NOTICE in our distributed artifacts (on
Maven). I will open a PR today.
When these two PRs will be merged, I will move forward o
nthrax.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Usually, at Apache, we have two kind of versioning for
> > "pre-release":
> > > > > > - 1.0.0.M1 and 1.0.0.RC1 (Apache Superset, Apache Camel, Apache
> &g
t like 1.0-pre? That aligns with common
pattern
across
many opensource projects, another thought is to make that
more
semver
friendly
________________
From: Yufei Gu
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 11:59:27 PM
To: dev@polaris.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Preparing 0.10.0 r
> > > > > > > I think the 0.10.0 version is clear enough that it comes
> before
> > > 1.0
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > does not have any implied scope.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > While 0.10.0 is i
hought is to make that more semver
friendly
____
From: Yufei Gu
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 11:59:27 PM
To: dev@polaris.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Preparing 0.10.0 release including binary
distributions
Thanks for the explanation, JB! In that case, we may focus
; versioning)
> > > > >
> > > > > For "clarity" for our community and users, I propose to use Apache
> > > > > Polaris (incubating) 1.0.0-preview1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any objections?
> > > > >
> >
se to use Apache
> > > > Polaris (incubating) 1.0.0-preview1.
> > > >
> > > > Any objections?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 2:37 PM Kamesh Sampath
> > > > wro
, Mar 17, 2025 at 2:37 PM Kamesh Sampath
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Shall we name it like 1.0-pre? That aligns with common pattern across
> > > many opensource projects, another thought is to make that more semver
> > > friendly
> > > >
semver
> > friendly
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Yufei Gu
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 11:59:27 PM
> > > To: dev@polaris.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Preparing 0.10.0 release including binary
ith common pattern across
many opensource projects, another thought is to make that more semver
friendly
From: Yufei Gu
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 11:59:27 PM
To: dev@polaris.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Preparing 0.10.0 release including binary
distrib
re semver
> friendly
> >
> >
> > From: Yufei Gu
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 11:59:27 PM
> > To: dev@polaris.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Preparing 0.10.0 release including binary
> distributions
> >
>
] Preparing 0.10.0 release including binary distributions
Thanks for the explanation, JB! In that case, we may focus on 0.10.0 only.
How about a name like pre-1.0, which clarifies that it's a release mainly
to test out something for 1.0.0?
Yufei
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 11:33 PM Jean-Baptiste O
+1
From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 6:48:37 AM
To: dev@polaris.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Preparing 0.10.0 release including binary distributions
Usually, at Apache, we have two kind of versioning for "pre-release":
- 1.
t is to make that more semver friendly
>
>
> From: Yufei Gu
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 11:59:27 PM
> To: dev@polaris.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Preparing 0.10.0 release including binary distributions
>
> Thanks for the explanation,
Wasn’t that the intent of naming the first release 0.9.0?
It seems wrong to cut a new version not from main
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 12:16 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi Yufei
>
> Yeah, pre-1.0 or 1.0-alpha is OK for me. Good idea.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:59 AM Yufei
I'm not sure I follow you, Eric.
0.10.0 or pre-1.0 will be cut from main, for sure.
It's also possible to cut 0.9.1 from the 0.9.x branch. It's pretty
classic for maintenance release, we do that in almost all Apache
projects.
So, my proposal is to cut 0.10.0 or pre-1.0 (both versions are ok for
Thanks for the explanation, JB! In that case, we may focus on 0.10.0 only.
How about a name like pre-1.0, which clarifies that it's a release mainly
to test out something for 1.0.0?
Yufei
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 11:33 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi Yufei
>
> That's a good point.
>
> What
Hi Yufei
Yeah, pre-1.0 or 1.0-alpha is OK for me. Good idea.
Regards
JB
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:59 AM Yufei Gu wrote:
>
> Thanks for the explanation, JB! In that case, we may focus on 0.10.0 only.
> How about a name like pre-1.0, which clarifies that it's a release mainly
> to test out someth
I think it's a good idea. Thanks for taking care of this, JB!
What is included in the binary distribution? Just jars or docker too?
Side note: we should probably adjust PR #1070 [1] since the first release
number is going to be different.
[1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1170
Cheers,
Hi Yufei
That's a good point.
What about doing both ?
- 0.9.1 would be the same as 0.9.0 but with binary distributions
- 0.10.0 would be based on main
The reason I would like to do that is because the binary distributions
are not the same (the framework used is not the same).
In order to "prepar
Hi JB,
That's a very good idea.
Regarding Docker images, I think it would be great if users could just
"docker pull apache/polaris" and start using Polaris, as opposed to having
to manually build the images.
However, a Docker image with just in-memory persistence is likely useless
for anything e
I think it's a good idea. Thanks JB.
If it's only for testing binary distributions. Can we base it on 0.9.0 so
that we can give users a clear message that everything else is the same as
0.9.0 except it provides binary distribution?
This is mainly to make life easier for OSS users as well as develo
Hi Dmitri
https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/polaris
It's empty for now :)
Regards
JB
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 8:56 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote:
>
> > As we have a Polaris repo on Docker HUB [...]
>
> What do we currently push there?
>
> Thanks,
> Dmitri.
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:47 PM Jean-
Thanks for the pointer, Alex :)
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 5:38 PM Alex Dutra
wrote:
> Hi Dmitri,
>
> The Dockerfile under /regtests is not the official Polaris Dockerfile, it's
> used only for regression tests and contains a Spark runtime and the tests.
> We could publish it as well, but imho it's
Hi Dmitri,
The Dockerfile under /regtests is not the official Polaris Dockerfile, it's
used only for regression tests and contains a Spark runtime and the tests.
We could publish it as well, but imho it's not a must.
The official Dockerfile for the Polaris server is here:
https://github.com/apac
I agree that a simple docker pull is a huge advantage to users.
However, in that case we should probably promote the Dockerfile to a normal
production artifact (it is currently under /regtests and has test-specific
code).
Cheers,
Dmitri.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 4:37 PM Alex Dutra
wrote:
> Hi J
> As we have a Polaris repo on Docker HUB [...]
What do we currently push there?
Thanks,
Dmitri.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:47 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> The binary distributions are everything we distribute/publish. I would
> focus on archive (tar.gz/zip), and jar files.
> As we have a P
Fully agree Russell. That's the plan :)
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 4:37 PM Russell Spitzer
wrote:
>
> Strongly in favor of this. I'm ok if it's just built jars (not including
> docker code)
> but if we think that's possible to do at the same time I'm fine with that
> as well.
>
The binary distributions are everything we distribute/publish. I would
focus on archive (tar.gz/zip), and jar files.
As we have a Polaris repo on Docker HUB, I will also include docker image check.
Regards
JB
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 1:53 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote:
>
> I think it's a good idea
Strongly in favor of this. I'm ok if it's just built jars (not including
docker code)
but if we think that's possible to do at the same time I'm fine with that
as well.
I would really like us to have some jars that are officially released,
even if
they are a pre-1.0 experimental sort of build.
On
35 matches
Mail list logo
