+1
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:49 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Gentle reminder on this RC. I plan to close the vote soon (we already
> have enough binding votes, but I would like to give a chance to take a
> look).
>
> Thanks !
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 5:24 PM Jean-Baptiste
+1 (binding)
On 28.05.25 17:48, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Gentle reminder on this RC. I plan to close the vote soon (we already
have enough binding votes, but I would like to give a chance to take a
look).
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 5:24 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi e
Hi Yufei,
Thanks for putting this together, much appreciated. The document does
highlight some useful design principles (such as not mixing business logic
and leaking implementation details) which are true in general. These are
not necessarily limited to persistence IMHO.
We have discussed persis
Gentle reminder on this RC. I plan to close the vote soon (we already
have enough binding votes, but I would like to give a chance to take a
look).
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 5:24 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> I propose that we release the following RC (RC4)
Thanks for sharing it here.
If all we need is to start a Polaris instance, run the tests, and shut it
down, a 7 k-line Apprunner plugin feels like using a sledgehammer on a
thumbtack. Would a lightweight Testcontainers wrapper, or even a simple
Gradle exec hook would cover the use cases?
Yufei
Hi Ashok,
It makes sense to separate both options into different PRs. We will need a
feature flag to control them though, see more details in class
FeatureConfiguration. The potential options would be:
1. No KMS support
2. KMS support with Approach #3
3. KMS support with Approach #4
Yufei
On Mo
