+1 (binding)
I checked:
- Source distribution
-- incubating is in the version
-- signature and checksum are good
-- DISCLAIMER is present
-- LICENSE and NOTICE are good (personally, I think NOTICE should not
mention Nessie as it's just the copyright and already in the LICENSE,
but one IPMC asked t
-1 (binding)
Given the nature of the broken "list" operations in federation towards
usability and the fairly straightforward already-merged fix to pick, my
vote is to cut a new RC6 for the fix.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 11:22 PM Dennis Huo wrote:
> Sorry for surfacing this late, but I hadn't notic
+1(binding)
1. Signatures and Checksums are all good
2. Both admin-tool and server in the binary distribution run well.
3. Helm chart sign and checksum are good.
Yufei
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 1:54 PM yun zou wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> I tested the spark client using both --packages and --ja
Hi all,
I wanted to start a discussion around the support for Hive Catalog
federation in Polaris. In particular, there are two primary ways we can add
support for Hive federation:
*1. Support a single Hive instance per Polaris deployment* The Hive
workflow would be identical to the Hadoop catalog
+1 (non-binding)
I verified the following:
- Source tarball (shasum and GPG signature)
- Build and test
- Verified server binary distribution
Bests,
William
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 1:54 PM yun zou wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> I tested the spark client using both --packages and --jars optio
+1 (non-binding)
I tested the spark client using both --packages and --jars options, tested
operations:
1) create/insert values for both delta and iceberg tables
2) create/drop namespaces
3) create/drop iceberg and delta tables
Things turned out to work accordingly.
Best Regards,
Yun
On Mon, Ju
+1 (non binding)
I verified the following:
- Source tarball (shasum and GPG signature)
- Build and test
- Verified server binary distribution
- basic sanity testing with JDBC persistence layer
Thank you Yufei !
Bests,
Prashant
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 9:47 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> +1 (b
Sorry for surfacing this late, but I hadn't noticed
https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1848 before (already fixed at head
by Rulin's https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1849)
I can't remember whether we formally considered Federation bugs to be 1.0
blockers, but it's one of the big featur
