Hi all,
Thanks for the additional context.
Just to clarify my position here. The confusion for me came from how the
discussion unfolded. As far as I can tell, we never explicitly discussed or
voted on renaming the Python module to `apache_polaris`, please point me to
the thread if I missed it. In
Hi Artur,
I agree with you. The module name 'polaris' seems to be quite common,
and 'apache_polaris' was a reasonable alternative. We could have
certainly discussed a lot of other options for the module name for a
long time (nomenclature is hard). But I think at some point we should
just go with o
Hi Yufei, Thanks for the clarification.
I’d personally advocate for keeping the current module name
"apache_polaris".
The main reason is that it significantly reduces the risk of module name
collisions in user environments — "polaris" is a very common name on
PyPI and in internal packages, so
Hi Yufei,
[...] we already passed the community vote that explicitly
covered both: renaming PyPI package name to apache-polaris. Keep the
existing Python module name: polaris.
Could you link this vote?
If you mean [1], it looks like it only covered the package name, but did
not include any deci
Hi Dmitri,
Yeah, it was a bit confusing, package names and module names can differ,
and in our case we already passed the community vote that explicitly
covered both: renaming PyPI package name to apache-polaris. Keep the
existing Python module name: polaris.
Given that the vote and prior discuss
Hi Yufei,
I personally think "apache_polaris" as a module name aligns well with
"apache-polaris" as a package name. IIRC, the use of the underscore is
necessary due to language syntax requirements.
TBH, I was initially confused with the vote thread [1] as I thought it was
related to the CLI (shel
