Yeah, that is what we intend to do. At the same time, we will also take action to continuouly reducing the release binary size.
On 2026/01/22 09:30:20 roryqi wrote: > Just to remind that we have limitations about binary size in Apache > svn. So we would better not provide a binary package including all the > catalogs. > > Justin Mclean <[email protected]> 于2026年1月22日周四 17:04写道： > > > > Hi, > > > > This proposal generally makes sense, but I think there are a few areas > > where the framing could be tightened to better align with ASF release and > > governance expectations. > > > > The main point of concern is the distinction of released artifacts.. The > > proposal currently describes two binary packages and states that the > > “extended” package would not be released. From an ASF perspective, anything > > produced by official release tooling, named like a release artifact, or > > referenced in release documentation risks being interpreted as an release. > > It would be cleaner to treat catalogs-contrib as source-built extensions, > > rather than as an alternate binary distribution. > > > > Related to this, the phrase “relaxed requirements” may unintentionally > > imply lower quality or weaker accountability. What’s really being proposed > > is a change in the scope of CI enforcement, not a reduction in standards. > > > > In short, the direction looks reasonable, but tightening the language > > around releases and CI policy, should help avoid confusion later, > > especially during release reviews. > > > > Thanks, > > Justin >
