Hi folks, Sorry, I missed this topic in the Community Sync this morning but it seems we couldn't resolve/fully-understand the issues with the reproducible build. To avoid further delaying the release, I will remove the "reproducible build" verification steps from the `verify-release.sh` script (given that we know that section of the verification does not work, has never worked, and produces no useful output that a verifier can act upon). Once that is merged, I will continue with sending out the RC for a vote.
Best, Adnan Hemani On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 11:15 AM Adnan Hemani <[email protected]> wrote: > While I still don't agree with the check being part of the verification > script (there are 300+ flagged artifacts, including some of which that are > bytecode - what is anyone supposed to check in that??), I think I am seeing > something different from the known Quarkus-generated bytecode. > > I took the `polaris-rustfs-container` module - which to my understanding > (verified with the generated module file) should not depend on Quarkus. All > artifacts generated for this module were still flagged as different. Here > is a link to the diffchecker for the module file: > https://www.diffchecker.com/s7ARiZOh/ > > Are we sure what we are looking at is still due to Quarkus/Jandex/known > dependencies with non-deterministic bytecode? > > -Adnan > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 9:58 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Quarkus-generated bytecode is currently expected to cause a bit-by-bit >> verification failure. >> >> Given this, the full "bit-by-bit" reproducibility verification isn't >> practical. Can we exclude the Quarkus generated bytecode in the script? >> >> >> Yufei >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 7:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > I think it's fair to keep it but to clearly state to the user that it's >> > "expected" (I don't say normal :)). >> > >> > I think Adnan was confused when he saw the warnings. >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 2:47 PM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > The verification script was built with full "bit-by-bit" >> reproducibility >> > in >> > > mind. >> > > The verification failure here is technically correct, >> Quarkus-generated >> > > bytecode is currently expected to cause a bit-by-bit verification >> > failure. >> > > >> > > What it's basically saying is: "I cannot verify that the artifacts >> fully >> > > match the result as expected from the source tree." >> > > It's annoying, but, in my very personal opinion, it's correct and >> should >> > > stay. Hence the paragraph about the Quarkus generated jars in the >> failure >> > > message. >> > > One may also interpret this as: "I should look, at least, into the >> > zip/tar >> > > files and validate that only the Quarkus generated bytecode is causing >> > the >> > > difference - and nothing else, for example, a dependency jar."" >> > > >> > > Robert >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:42 PM Adnan Hemani via dev < >> > > [email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Robert and/or Pierre, can one of you confirm this? If so, I can >> open a >> > PR >> > > > tomorrow removing these checks from the script. We can add it back >> in >> > the >> > > > future once Quarkus reproducible builds are in a version that >> Polaris >> > > runs >> > > > on. >> > > > >> > > > -Adnan >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 3:36 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I agree. I think it was anticipated steps. >> > > > > >> > > > > Le mar. 31 mars 2026 à 12:27, Adnan Hemani via dev < >> > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > a écrit : >> > > > > >> > > > >> If all artifacts fail due to these reasons, then why did we ever >> > > insert >> > > > >> these checks into the script? IMO there is no point in creating >> all >> > > this >> > > > >> noise in the script output if we should not ever expect it to >> > succeed. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> -Adnan >> > > > >> >> > > > >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:32 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > >> wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > By the way, as tracking in issue #2204, it's expected the >> > > > >> > verify-release.sh script warns about differences between local >> > build >> > > > and >> > > > >> > files on dist/maven staging repo. >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > The reason is: >> > > > >> > - Quarkus-generated bytecode (generated-bytecode.jar, >> > > > >> > transformed-bytecode.jar, quarkus-application.jar) is >> > > > non-deterministic >> > > > >> > - Re-assembled jars (polaris-admin-*.jar, >> polaris-server-*.jar) >> > > > >> contain >> > > > >> > the above >> > > > >> > - Zips/tarballs containing any of the above inherit the >> > > > >> > non-reproducibility >> > > > >> > Until Quarkus fully supports reproducible builds, these >> > differences >> > > > are >> > > > >> > expected and should be reviewed manually rather than treated as >> > > > release >> > > > >> > blockers. >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > So, maybe we should have a "clear/emphasized" message on the >> > > > >> > verify-release.sh script about "reproducible build known >> issue". >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Regards >> > > > >> > JB >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 6:37 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> > > [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> I created https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4092 to >> update >> > > the >> > > > >> >> verify-release.sh script, checking if LICENSE/NOTICE exists in >> > > either >> > > > >> root >> > > > >> >> or META-INF. >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> Regards >> > > > >> >> JB >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 6:16 AM Yufei Gu < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >>> Thanks for the confirmation, JB, that aligns with my >> > > understanding. >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> Let me briefly summarize the issue raised in the thread: >> > > > >> >>> >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/bv2bdv4d2yhslnmj9bthsthfsd35b0of >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> Adnan noted that the verify-release script reports missing >> > LICENSE >> > > > and >> > > > >> >>> NOTICE files under META-INF/ for the Spark connector JARs, >> which >> > > > were >> > > > >> >>> removed in PR 3912. >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> My understanding is that these files are not required in >> > > META-INF/, >> > > > as >> > > > >> >>> the top-level LICENSE and NOTICE files should be sufficient. >> I >> > > also >> > > > >> >>> double-checked previous releases: versions 1.0.0, 1.0.1, >> 1.1.0, >> > > and >> > > > >> 1.2.0 >> > > > >> >>> do not include them under META-INF/, while only 1.3.0 does. >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> Given this, I suggest either ignoring this warning from the >> > > > >> >>> verify-release script or updating the script accordingly. >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> Yufei >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 8:59 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> > > > [email protected] >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >>> wrote: >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>>> Hi >> > > > >> >>>> >> > > > >> >>>> An update about 1.4.0 release: >> > > > >> >>>> - LICENSE/NOTICE have been fixed on the Spark plugin >> > > > >> >>>> - We have a plan about the CLI for the 1.4.0 release >> > > > >> >>>> - I checked Spark plugin build and it looks compliant with >> > > > >> reproducible >> > > > >> >>>> build to me (since ShadowJar extends AbstractArchiveTask, >> the >> > > > >> >>>> createPolarisSparkJar bundle JAR also inherits these >> settings >> > > > >> >>>> automatically, meaning both the regular JAR and the >> > shadow/bundle >> > > > JAR >> > > > >> >>>> should be reproducible). >> > > > >> >>>> >> > > > >> >>>> I think we are good to go with the release. >> > > > >> >>>> >> > > > >> >>>> Anything missing for the 1.4.0 release ? >> > > > >> >>>> >> > > > >> >>>> Regards >> > > > >> >>>> JB >> > > > >> >>>> >> > > > >> >>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 8:02 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> > > > >> [email protected]> >> > > > >> >>>> wrote: >> > > > >> >>>> >> > > > >> >>>>> Hi Yufei, >> > > > >> >>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>> I agree; that is a good plan for the CLI. >> > > > >> >>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>> We will update the release script and process regarding the >> > CLI >> > > > for >> > > > >> >>>>> the 1.5.0 release. >> > > > >> >>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>> Regards, >> > > > >> >>>>> JB >> > > > >> >>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 7:05 PM Yufei Gu < >> > [email protected]> >> > > > >> wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>> For CLI publishing, we set up this pypi repo last year: >> > > > >> >>>>>> https://pypi.org/manage/project/apache-polaris/releases/. >> > > > >> >>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>> We need to publish to this repo once the 1.4.0 vote >> passed. >> > > Users >> > > > >> can >> > > > >> >>>>>> pull it directly from PyPI after that. >> > > > >> >>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>> Yufei >> > > > >> >>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 10:02 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> > > > >> [email protected]> >> > > > >> >>>>>> wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> Hi, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> I will work with Robert on #3909. I will do another pass >> to >> > > have >> > > > >> it >> > > > >> >>>>>>> merge >> > > > >> >>>>>>> asap. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> PR #3891 looks good to me and can be merged imho. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> Following PR #3881 (fixing LICENSE/NOTICE in both admin >> and >> > > > server >> > > > >> >>>>>>> distributions), we have to update the "main" distribution >> > > > >> (basically >> > > > >> >>>>>>> merging both admin and server distributions >> LICENSE/NOTICE). >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> So, to summarize the blockers for 1.4.0: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> - PR #3891 is good and can be merged >> > > > >> >>>>>>> - PR #3909 needs another pass (I gonna do that) >> > > > >> >>>>>>> - LICENSE/NOTICE from the "main" distribution should be >> > > updated >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> Regards >> > > > >> >>>>>>> JB >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 9:54 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> > > > >> [email protected]> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > Hi >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > I did the #3909 review and it's not "complete" (see >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3909#pullrequestreview-3891720251 >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > for the one interested). >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > I will work to fix that (either with Robert or >> creating a >> > > new >> > > > >> PR). >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > I will keep you posted :) >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > Regards >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > JB >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 2:38 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> > > > >> >>>>>>> [email protected]> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> Hi >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> I'm checking the LICENSE/NOTICE in the Spark plugin >> right >> > > now >> > > > >> >>>>>>> (#3909). >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> I'm also doing a full pass to be sure we are good. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> I will keep you posted. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> Thanks ! >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> Regards >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> JB >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 2:23 PM Adnan Hemani via dev < >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> Hi Robert, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> This is a good point. JB, can you please take a look >> at >> > > > these >> > > > >> >>>>>>> and merge >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> if >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> you think the PRs are complete? >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> Best, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> Adnan Hemani >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 11:16 PM Robert Stupp < >> > > > [email protected]> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > Hi all, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > Thanks for working with JB. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > The remaining legal issues on the 1.4.0 milestone >> [1] >> > > > should >> > > > >> >>>>>>> be sorted >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> out >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > before cutting the branch to avoid additional work >> and >> > > > >> further >> > > > >> >>>>>>> delay >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> from >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > duplicate PRs (against main and the release >> branch). >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > Neither the LICENSE/NOTICE for the binary >> > > > server+admin-tool >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> distribution >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > nor the LICENSE/NOTICE files for the plugin are >> good. >> > > PRs >> > > > to >> > > > >> >>>>>>> fix this >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> still >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > need reviews. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > Robert >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/milestone/6 >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 3:47 AM Adnan Hemani via >> dev < >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > [email protected]> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > Hi all, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > I've worked with JB to verify that we should be >> > ready >> > > to >> > > > >> cut >> > > > >> >>>>>>> the >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> release >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > branch for 1.4.0. As we are well past the >> original >> > > > branch >> > > > >> >>>>>>> cut date, I >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > will >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > cut the branch sometime tomorrow, March 4th, 2026 >> > > during >> > > > >> PST >> > > > >> >>>>>>> business >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > hours. If you have any last-minute changes that >> need >> > > to >> > > > go >> > > > >> >>>>>>> into the >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> 1.4.0 >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > release, please ensure they are merged tonight. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > Best, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > Adnan Hemani >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 6:04 AM Jean-Baptiste >> > Onofré < >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> [email protected]> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > Hi >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > During the weekend, I reviewed the 1.4.0 >> release >> > > > prep. I >> > > > >> >>>>>>> also found >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > that >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > LICENSE and NOTICE are not up to date: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > - the versions are not up to date (I created a >> PR >> > to >> > > > >> >>>>>>> remove the >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > versions >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > ( >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3861 >> that >> > > has >> > > > >> been >> > > > >> >>>>>>> reused >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> by >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > Robert >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > in the "generation" PR). >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > - the runtime distributions dependencies >> changed, >> > > but >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> LICENSE/NOTICE >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > have >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > not been updated (I was about to create >> another PR >> > > > about >> > > > >> >>>>>>> that). >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > I mentioned that last week during the Polaris >> > > > Community >> > > > >> >>>>>>> Meeting: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> this >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > is >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > a >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > blocker for the 1.4.0 release. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > Thanks Robert for the PR, I will review it and >> > > double >> > > > >> >>>>>>> check if we >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> are >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > good >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > (from a legal standpoint). >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > Regards >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > JB >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 2:44 PM Robert Stupp < >> > > > >> >>>>>>> [email protected]> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > Hi all, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > I reviewed the licenses for the binary >> > > distribution, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> which is >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> part of >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > the release management. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > Several changes must be made to the LICENSE >> > files >> > > > and >> > > > >> >>>>>>> block the >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > release. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > Looking into those, it became apparent that >> > other >> > > > >> >>>>>>> dependency >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> changes >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > are >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > required for version 1.4.0 release. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > I have created the relevant PRs and added >> them >> > to >> > > > the >> > > > >> >>>>>>> milestone >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> for >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > the >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > 1.4.0 release. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > Robert >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 2:02 AM Adnan Hemani >> via >> > > > dev < >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > [email protected]> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > Hi, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > Thanks for this update - I had it on my >> > calendar >> > > > >> today >> > > > >> >>>>>>> to send >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> out >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > an >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > email >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > today to get this started and completely >> > missed >> > > > this >> > > > >> >>>>>>> thread in >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> my >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > inbox >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > for >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > some reason. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > Let me start the thread with my initial >> > thoughts >> > > > on >> > > > >> >>>>>>> all the >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > remaining >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > open >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > issues and PRs later today and we can go >> from >> > > > there. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > Best, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > Adnan Hemani >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 6:58 AM >> Jean-Baptiste >> > > > >> Onofré < >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > [email protected]> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > Hi folks, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > I believe we are approaching the >> scheduled >> > > time >> > > > >> for >> > > > >> >>>>>>> the next >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > release, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > following our monthly cadence. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > I just reviewed the GitHub milestone ( >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/polaris/milestone/6 >> > > ) >> > > > >> and >> > > > >> >>>>>>> noticed >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> there >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > are >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > still >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > 14 open issues. While some appear close >> to >> > > > >> >>>>>>> completion, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> others may >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > require >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > further discussion. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > Could we perform a triage to determine if >> > > these >> > > > >> >>>>>>> issues should >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > remain >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > in >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > the >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > 1.4.0 milestone or be bumped to a later >> one? >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > Adnan, as the release manager, would you >> > mind >> > > > >> taking >> > > > >> >>>>>>> the >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> lead on >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > the >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > 1.4.0-incubating release preparation? >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > Thanks! >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > Regards, >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > JB >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 8:42 PM >> > Jean-Baptiste >> > > > >> Onofré >> > > > >> >>>>>>> < >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > [email protected]> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > Hi folks >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion to >> > > prepare >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> 1.4.0-incubating. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > Who would like to be release manager on >> > this >> > > > >> one ? >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > I will check the milestone on GH. >> Please >> > > > assign >> > > > >> >>>>>>> the 1.4.0 >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > milestone >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > to >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > issues/PRs you want to include in this >> > > > release. >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > Thanks ! >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > Regards >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > JB >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> > >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >>> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> > > > >> >>>>>>> >> > > > >> >>>>>> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
