Usually we don't put the rc in the staged artifacts, exactly to avoid to
change the checksum files after (only the vote should have RC, not the
artifacts).

I don't consider the License in package info as a blocker (the actual
LICENSE file is included), but clearly to be fixed.

Regarding, these issues, I suggest to cancel this vote to prepare a clean
RC2 with clean artifacts and updated package info.

Regards
JB


On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 4:02 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi JB,
>
> Thanks for fixing the checksum files. They pass validation now. Signatures
> are OK too. The package installs fine.
>
> However, I still vote -1 because of the RC tags and missing "License" in
> package info (details below).
>
> 1) SHA files still reference files with "rc1" in the name. If we publish
> them, we'll have to modify the content after voting, which is not nice.
>
> $ cat apache_polaris-1.4.0rc1.tar.gz.sha512
>
> 5c8b2d967965e9b578ca1e4e3e5d659a5bd5cdb3ee2ae1622a2eae95605e5e8683902b5d3044736220eb48c29d4dd70275eab95528270ebbb411a8e71f8c159c
>  apache_polaris-1.4.0rc1.tar.gz
>
> 2) Python package info still shows a version with "rc1" after installation.
> As I noted before, I believe this will require re-packaging after the vote
> (to avoid "RC" in the final release).
>
> $ venv/bin/pip show apache-polaris
> Name: apache-polaris
> Version: 1.4.0rc1
> Summary: Apache Polaris
> Home-page:
> Author:
> Author-email: Apache Software Foundation <[email protected]>
> License:
> Location:
> /home/dmitri/Downloads/pol-cli-rc1/venv/lib/python3.12/site-packages
> Requires: boto3, prettytable, pydantic, python-dateutil, pyyaml,
> typing-extensions, urllib3
> Required-by:
>
> Confirmed manually: the "rc1" tag is present in PKG-INFO inside the signed
> archive too. So, removing the RC tag will require re-signing and will
> invalidate signature checks during the vote.
>
> 3) Licence name is missing from package info.
>
> 4) (minor) Home-page and author email are missing from package info
>
> Sorry for being picky, but I believe these matters are important.
>
> Cheers,
> Dmitri.
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 1:32 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > 1. The checksums are basically correct (in terms of pure checksum), you
> can
> > verify for instance with this sha512 content:
> >
> >
> >
> 5c8b2d967965e9b578ca1e4e3e5d659a5bd5cdb3ee2ae1622a2eae95605e5e8683902b5d3044736220eb48c29d4dd70275eab95528270ebbb411a8e71f8c159c
> >  apache_polaris-1.4.0rc1.tar.gz
> >
> > for instance.
> >
> > 2. Usually, to simplify the check, the path in the sha512 should use a
> > relative local path (that's the issue here: the sha512 file should a
> > relative path but relative to the root folder).
> > 3. Since the checksums are correct, we can update dist.apache.org to use
> > the related one level path. I fixed the sha512 files on dist.apache.org.
> >
> > @Yong and @Dmitri can you check again? It should be fine by default now.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 2:19 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Correction: I found the key. Signatures are OK.
> > >
> > > Still, the other issues remain.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Dmitri.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 8:06 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Adnan,
> > > >
> > > > -1 (binding)
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for nitpicks, but checksums do not easily match based on data
> in
> > > > dist - file paths are not aligned:
> > > >
> > > > $ sha512sum -c *.sha512
> > > > sha512sum:
> client/python/dist/apache_polaris-1.4.0rc1-py3-none-any.whl:
> > > No
> > > > such file or directory
> > > > client/python/dist/apache_polaris-1.4.0rc1-py3-none-any.whl: FAILED
> > open
> > > > or read
> > > > sha512sum: WARNING: 1 listed file could not be read
> > > > sha512sum: client/python/dist/apache_polaris-1.4.0rc1.tar.gz: No such
> > > file
> > > > or directory
> > > > client/python/dist/apache_polaris-1.4.0rc1.tar.gz: FAILED open or
> read
> > > > sha512sum: WARNING: 1 listed file could not be read
> > > >
> > > > Signature verification failed:
> > > >
> > > > $ gpg --verify apache_polaris-1.4.0rc1-py3-none-any.whl.asc
> > > > apache_polaris-1.4.0rc1-py3-none-any.whl
> > > > gpg: Signature made Tue 21 Apr 2026 01:30:38 AM EDT
> > > > gpg:                using RSA key
> > > 81010346A868FB157879A81354F298C6A64BECCC
> > > > gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
> > > >
> > > > I downloaded the latest KEYS file... Did I miss something?.. What is
> > this
> > > > RSA key?
> > > >
> > > > Also file names contain "rc1", which I think is still not great. I
> > > believe
> > > > the RC set of files on dist/dev should be exactly as the final set of
> > > > release files if the vote is successful, right?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Dmitri.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 1:38 AM Adnan Hemani via dev <
> > > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Uploaded the source distribution on dist.apache.org.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yong, I'm not sure what you're pointing out. Can you explain
> further?
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Adnan Hemani
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 10:03 PM Yong Zheng <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Maybe wrong path in the sha512:
> > > >> > cat apache_polaris-1.4.0rc1-py3-none-any.whl.sha512
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> beedace582c330e2602a643364fbf5806c3c7564897384f42e1ac546ed69e06c64cb29d7ab32787b05078785416c387be6ce66ce63e20ba6ebf9a36d16332e7d
> > > >> > client/python/dist/apache_polaris-1.4.0rc1-py3-none-any.whl
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Yong Zheng
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 2026/04/20 23:41:04 Adnan Hemani via dev wrote:
> > > >> > > Hi all,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I propose that we release the following RC as the official
> Apache
> > > >> Polaris
> > > >> > > Python CLI 1.4.0 release.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > SVN:
> > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/polaris/python-client/1.4.0/
> > > >> > > Test PyPI:
> https://test.pypi.org/project/apache-polaris/1.4.0rc1/
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 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
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to