I'm particularly concerned about what happened in PR #1230(
https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1230). The PR was merged despite
multiple unresolved comments from a committer.
To maintain a healthy review process, we’d like to encourage PR authors to
address open comments and work toward consen
+1 to what JB said.
My concern with Scala has mostly been that it can alienate new contributors
and add ambiguity about when we should use Scala vs. Java. If we’re putting
this in polaris-tools for now and the philosophy for polaris-tools is to
more or less use whatever language you prefer, there
Hello all,
We've had some productive discussion in various places on the mailing list,
in the github PR, and in the live community sync now about the initial
minimal updates to the Polaris REST API (under the "management API") for
adding a ConnectionConfigInfo field to ExternalCatalogs to represen
+1
It looks good to me. Thanks !
Regards
JB
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 5:28 AM Dennis Huo wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> We've had some productive discussion in various places on the mailing list,
> in the github PR, and in the live community sync now about the initial
> minimal updates to the Polaris
Hi Eric,
Thanks for pointing this out.
I think that's unfortunate, especially for #1230 (I don't see issues
on #1226 and #1220 as they have been approved by 3 different
committers).
I strongly believe that, as a community, we do a great work all
together, and we highly consider comments from eac
Hi,
Personally, I'm more in favor of hosting the benchmark tool in
polaris-tools (it looks logical :)).
Now, about Scala, and generally speaking about "maintenance
questions", I think we should not consider what we (individuals) can
or want to maintain, but more, what the community (including all
