Hi Kevin, Yes and no: if the source distribution MUST be included in a release (that's the only required artifact), any other artifacts published (for user convenience) should also be reviewed and covered by the vote. That's why the Maven Staging repository is included in the release vote for instance.
Anything we publish as part of a release (PyPI publication, for instance) should be reviewed and covered by the vote. Regards JB On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 4:47 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for flagging this! I'd suggest we skip the PyPI publish for 1.4.0 > since the RC is already out. > > From the ASF's perspective, the source artifact is what matters most for > releases; that's the "source" in open source 😄 > PyPI packages are really just a convenience for users, and they can always > build the CLI locally from the 1.4.0 source. See the ASF release policy for > reference: > https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages > > For the next release, we can properly include the PyPI publication as part > of the RC process and add the verification steps you mentioned. PyIceberg > has solid release instructions we could reference: > https://py.iceberg.apache.org/how-to-release/ > > Best, > Kevin Liu > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 5:39 PM Adnan Hemani via dev < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > There was a request to publish the Python CLI for Polaris to PyPI for > > v1.4.0 earlier that I missed when sending 1.4.0 RC2 out for a vote. How > > should we proceed? I can either send a separate vote thread for the CLI > or > > merge it onto the existing RC2 vote thread. > > > > Note: We currently have no verification steps for the CLI. Perhaps we can > > address this in the near future? > > > > Best, > > Adnan Hemani > > >
