Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Polaris 0.10.0-beta-incubating (rc4)

My question was actually regarding what exactly happened and why signatures were not reliably generated. The linked issue appears to have a failure. Was that failure why it was necessary to take manual steps? My concern is that there is a reliable process for builds that doesn't involve manual step

Re: [DISCUSS] Gradle and Maven runner plugins

Note that just summarizing the whole PR to a 7k line Apprunner plugin is a bit of a stretch. There are actually multiple plugins and multiple DSL to support many use cases. A Testcontainers approach could be an option, when Docker images are available. The tradeoff being that it will require Doc

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Polaris 0.10.0-beta-incubating (rc4)

Yes the first full build (including tests) failed due to the Polaris-version. I did the signature manually to speed up the process. It was exceptional and will not happen for future release (it was ok in previous release). If you prefer, I can cancel rc4, fix the test on release branch and cut a n

Re: [DISCUSS] Prepare for 1.0 Release

Hi folks, Great to see that we’ve resolved most of the 1.0 blockers — huge thanks to everyone who contributed! Here are a few remaining items: 1. #1616 – I believe JB is working on this. JB, could you confirm? 2. #1676

[DISCUSS] PR #1724 – Directory & package refactor for persistence modules

Hi everyone, I’d like to draw attention to PR #1724 ( https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1724) which reorganises our persistence modules: - Moves *EclipseLink* and *JDBC* from extension/persistence/impl/* to a top-level persistence/* directory. - Aligns most Java packages fro

Re: [DISCUSS] Gradle and Maven runner plugins

Just one small note -- we already have tests that require docker to pass.

Re: [DISCUSS] Gradle and Maven runner plugins

I'm supportive if it adds value to both Polaris devs and users. But, I don't think the Polaris project is in a position to provide a generic building infrastructure for integration tests. Can we list use cases the plugin tries to cover? I'd be happy to have a discussion session if needed. Yufei

Re: Guidance for new persistence implementation

Hi Keith, I don't think we’ve reached consensus on having NoSQL impl its own top-level module in the main Polaris repo. We only floated MongoDB as a possible single-module in the main repo, with a clear justification. More broadly, I’m worried about packing every new persistence implementation in

[DISCUSS] Behavior of custom metadata location

Hi everyone, I’d like to bring up a discussion around the expected behavior of the write.metadata.path config, which is used to set a custom metadata location for tables and views. Currently, Polaris does *not allow* creating a view with write.metadata.path outside of the allowedLocations defined