OK, we are go. All the show-stopper issues are committed. I'm going to update some documentation and start work on the first release candidate.
With luck there will be a PPMC release vote today. If you have a few minutes, download the release candidate and vote. Only PPMC votes are binding, but we'd like votes from as many in the community as possible. By the way, I pushed a new 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT build to nexus a couple of hours ago. It was almost the final version, except that a few deprecated APIs were still in the snapshot. If your project uses Calcite snapshots, give it a try. Julian > On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > I volunteer to be release manager, since no one else has stepped forward. > > I've been trying to get > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-466 complete before 1.0, > but it just isn't happening fast enough[1]. So, I propose to drop > CALCITE-466 from the goals for 1.0. > > Are there any remaining blockers for 1.0? > > If there are no blockers, I'll update the change history, create a new > snapshot for Hive and others to try, start running through the release > process[2], and we should have a release-candidate in a day or two. > > Julian > > [1] More details about the CALCITE-466 task, if you're interested: One > of the pre-requisites was to make the interpreter handle all the SQL > in the test suite (pretty much the whole of SQL), and user-defined > aggregates, windowed aggregation and outer joins are not working yet. > There are still about 100 test failures. It's impossible to go from > there to a stable release candidate in a few days. I'll check in my > changes to the interpreter, but the interpreter will not be on the > main code path; enumerable convention will continue to be used to > evaluate most of our test queries. > > [2] > https://github.com/apache/incubator-calcite/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.md#making-a-release-for-calcite-committers > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Brock Noland <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> From the Hive side, we don't expose Calcite to users so we should be >> able to handle any breakage on our end. >> >> Brock >> >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: >>> As long as everyone is comfortable with potential API breakage in 1.1, I'm >>> +1 for a release as well. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree. I would just like to get a release out. We’ve been talking about >>>> 1.0 for several months, so no one should be surprised. >>>> >>>> If anyone is struck with pangs of methodological guilt over the fact that >>>> we haven’t documented the public API, they are welcome to document it. >>>> >>>> Julian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If we polish really hard and make 1.0 perfect, then we would have nothing >>>>> to do for 2.0 ) >>>>> >>>>> I would prefer release sooner, so we can get feedback. >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise I have no preference. >>>>> >>>>> Vladimir >>>> >>>>
