Hi JB, Thanks for these pointers. I've almost got the changes working to automate these via the PyPI Trusted Workflow, so I will open this PR soon and send out a new VOTE thread for the CLI for 1.4.0. As suggested, the PR will make a change to include this artifact as part of all future release candidates after the version 1.4.0 one.
Best, Adnan Hemani On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 11:02 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > >
