+1 for what Tyler said. In general, votes should be used to confirm
agreement, not to choose a direction.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:19 AM Tyler Akidau wrote:
> I agree in principle, but I do think the wording in the contribution
> guidelines that JB shared is the better approach: discuss and app
JB, can you help us understand what is in this release?
Since this is the first one with binaries, I went to check licenses in the
Jar files. The first one that I checked was a runtime bundle. It had extra
license files from other projects, and the project's LICENSE didn't reflect
the contents of
JB, can you please confirm that there should be no shaded binaries in the
staged maven repository? Any context like this you can give us will help
when reviewing the licenses for this release. For example, if the helm
chart tarball doesn't contain third-party code that would be helpful to
know.
On
, May 20, 2025 at 10:09 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Yes: no shaded jar artifacts on Maven repository.
>
> On maven repository you will find the same tar.gz/zip as on dist. The other
> jars are “regular” jar files.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> Le mar. 20 mai
JB, what happened here? Is there a part of the process that is run by hand
rather than being done in a script? I can't think of what might have caused
this that went wrong with a script and we don't want future issues since
this is likely to not be caught in the future.
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 10:
ill be fine for next releases.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> Le mar. 27 mai 2025 à 17:44, Ryan Blue a écrit :
>
> > JB, what happened here? Is there a part of the process that is run by
> hand
> > rather than being done in a script? I can't think of what might have
&g
ix the test on release branch and cut a
> new rc5.
>
> Thanks
> Regards
> JB
>
> Le jeu. 29 mai 2025 à 21:50, Ryan Blue a écrit :
>
> > My question was actually regarding what exactly happened and why
> signatures
> > were not reliably generated. The linked is
I think there's a better way to achieve the results that this proposal is
aiming for. If I understand correctly, this is trying to create a way for
Polaris to be able to apply changes from one commit on top of another
without sending a commit conflict back to the client. Parallel appends are
the pr
