+1 (non-binding) I checked both the source dist and wheel from testpypi: - LICENSE/NOTICE exists - No unexpected binary files - All source files have ASF headers
Also ran the CLI locally ``` uvx --index https://test.pypi.org/simple/ --index-strategy unsafe-best-match --from apache-polaris==1.4.0rc0 polaris ``` Would be great to include the python source dist and wheel in the dev release (https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/polaris/) in the future. Dmitri, thats a valid point. When the release candidate pass, I would expect the artifact uploaded to PyPi have the version `1.4.0` (without the rc suffix). I think it is fine that it's different during the RC process. It's a convenience to users and can always be rebuilt from the source. In PyIceberg, we build the wheels twice. Once with the RC tag and upload it to PyPI as a pre-release; another without the RC tag and upload to dev SVN. During voting, we can check both the uploaded wheels and SVN wheels. When the RC passes, we use the wheels in SVN to upload the final version to PyPI. Best, Kevin Liu On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 4:13 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, should we sign the Python package (apache_polaris-1.4.0rc0.tar.gz) as > we sign the server's binary archives? > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 7:05 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > Voting -1 (binding) for now. > > > > Checked (OK): > > * LICENSE > > * NOTICE > > * Package .py file headers (manually sampled) > > * Venv install + CLI smoke test > > > > My contern: > > > > I'm not very familiar with Python packages and test.pypi.org, but in > > PKG-INFO (inside apache_polaris-1.4.0rc0.tar.gz) I see "Version: > 1.4.0rc0". > > > > I wonder whether this version will change when the artifact is promoted > to > > "dist"... Is it a concern? > > > > Also: > > > > $ venv/bin/pip show apache-polaris > > Name: apache-polaris > > Version: 1.4.0rc0 > > > > I'd expect "rc0" to be a transient property of the package while it is > > being reviewed and voted on, and that the package should report version > > 1.4.0 even while it is staged at test.pypi.org. > > > > If we intend to repackage the CLI for publication in the main PyPi index > > without the "rc0" mark, that will alter PKG-INFO and essentially > invalidate > > this vote, I guess (hence my -1 vote). > > > > The previous (unreleased) version doess not have the "rc" mark in > > https://test.pypi.org/project/apache-polaris/1.2.0/ > > > > WDYT? > > > > If this is not a concern or if I missed something, I'll be happy to > update > > my vote. > > > > Cheers, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 5:03 AM Adnan Hemani via dev < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I propose that we release the following RC as the official Apache > Polaris > >> Python CLI 1.4.0 release. > >> > >> https://test.pypi.org/project/apache-polaris/1.4.0rc0/ > >> > >> Starting with Apache Polaris 1.5.0, the CLI should be released alongside > >> all other release artifacts within the full Polaris Release Candidate. > >> Work > >> to make this happen can be found here: > >> https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4220 > >> > >> Please vote in the next 72 hours. > >> > >> [ ] +1 Release this as Apache Polaris 1.4.0 > >> [ ] +0 > >> [ ] -1 Do not release this because... > >> > >> Only PMC members have binding votes, but other community members are > >> encouraged to cast non-binding votes. > >> This vote will pass if there are 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 > >> votes than -1 votes. > >> > >> Best, > >> Adnan Hemani > >> > > >
