Hi Adnan,

Since this is a new artifact, I believe we need a follow-up PR to address
the issue. I will perform another review of the legal requirements for this
artifact and, if necessary, create a follow-up PR for the release script.

I am currently working on this and will keep you posted.

In the meantime, let's prepare the release this week so we can move forward
with a vote early next week.

Regards,
JB

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 7:07 AM Adnan Hemani via dev <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi JB,
>
> PR #3912 is the one I believe has created the LICENSE/NOTICE failure in the
> verification script. Are you saying you believe this warning is safe to
> ignore?
>
> We can surely continue next week with manual process for release if
> required.
>
> Best,
> Adnan Hemani
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:06 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We are currently behind schedule for the 1.4.0 release. I propose that we
> > prioritize this release immediately so we can submit it for a vote as
> soon
> > as possible.
> >
> > Here is a quick update:
> >
> > 1. PR #3912 regarding the Spark plugin LICENSE/NOTICE has been merged. I
> > am performing a final review, but we should be set on this.
> > 2. I am currently reviewing PR #4024 regarding release verification and
> > expect to finish today.
> >
> > I propose a deadline of the end of this week for this release. If we
> > continue to encounter issues with the release scripts, we can move
> forward
> > with a manual process.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Regards,
> > JB
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 5:28 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> HI Adnan
> >>
> >> Thanks for the update.
> >>
> >> 1. About #4024, I'm a bit surprised it happens now. I don't know a
> change
> >> explaining this. Let me take a look on the PR.
> >> 2. If it defers, it can be because the reproducible build is "broken".
> >> Let me execute the verify locally.
> >> 3.The release script expects that all distributed artifacts include
> >> LICENSE/NOTICE. #3912 seems to remove that for the Spark plugin. I
> didn't
> >> review #3912 and there's not a lot of details about the change. It
> didn't
> >> happen before because it's the first time we distribute the Spark
> plugin.
> >> Same here: I need to take a look.
> >>
> >> I will keep you posted asap (I'm traveling back home this morning, I
> >> should have time this afternoon to investigate).
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 4:26 AM Adnan Hemani via dev <
> >> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> While I have successfully generated the release materials for the RC0
> of
> >>> Polaris v1.4.0, I am facing a few issues when running the
> >>> `verify-release.sh` script.
> >>>
> >>> 1. A file descriptor resource leak causes the script to deadlock during
> >>> the
> >>> Signature and Checksum verification of the Maven repo. I've opened
> #4024
> >>> [1] to suggest a fix to this issue.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Getting errors on all artifacts: "Locally built and staged Maven
> >>> repository artifact XXX differ". I've verified I'm using the same Java
> >>> version to compile locally. So far, my hunch is that some asymmetric
> >>> differences exist between how the code is assembled in the GitHub
> >>> workflow
> >>> and how we assemble it locally, perhaps relating to the
> >>> "-PjarWithGitInfo"
> >>> and "-Prelease" flags. I really have no clue why this may be
> happening...
> >>>
> >>> 3. The verify-release script is complaining that the LICENSE and NOTICE
> >>> files are not found in "META-INF/" for the Spark connector jars. My
> >>> understanding is that #3912 [2] may be causing this. I'm not sure if
> >>> there
> >>> was a decision that LICENSE/NOTICE files do not need to be placed
> there?
> >>> But if not, is there a bug in #3912 that needs fixing?
> >>>
> >>> Here is a link to the GitHub Actions run that produces the materials I
> >>> was
> >>> attempting to verify:
> >>> https://github.com/apache/polaris/actions/runs/23222125467
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4024
> >>> [2] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3912
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Adnan Hemani
> >>>
> >>
>

Reply via email to