Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Yes, it looks like the mistake was not pushing the commit as it existed at RC time, but amending it with the release note changes: https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/5ad825c97edc0ee275a9a7257d6d6f62f12c49af On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 9:39 AM Julian Hyde wrote: > The release commit is the one

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

The release commit is the one that we voted on. By the way, did you get round to revising the release notes based on PR comments? Julian > On Feb 22, 2023, at 7:26 AM, Jess Balint wrote: > > Stamatis, > > The release commit referenced on the site > is 5ad825c97edc0ee275a9a7257d6d6f62f12c

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Stamatis, The release commit referenced on the site is 5ad825c97edc0ee275a9a7257d6d6f62f12c49af which also appears on the main branch. Can we switch the tag to this commit? On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 5:07 AM Stamatis Zampetakis wrote: > I find it a bit late to rebase at this point; I would prefer

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I find it a bit late to rebase at this point; I would prefer not to. I don't find it a major problem that the release commit is not in main but it is surprising. We should try to be more careful in the future. What we can do now is maybe add a manual verification step in the release instructions

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

In normal circumstances, using gradle to publish the release should also create the tag and push it to ASF Git[1]. The actual commit on main is https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/5ad825c97edc0ee275a9a7257d6d6f62f12c49af, which might be a problem for us, since calcite-1.33.0 and calcite-

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I created and pushed the missing tag using the following commands: git tag -a calcite-1.33.0 96b05ee12f936ed057265072ff6a2de8ea0a249e -m "Tag explicitly 1.33.0 release without -rc suffix" git push origin calcite-1.33.0 However, I noticed another small problem that I don't think we can fix at the

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

+1, we should add it. Stamatis Zampetakis 于2023年2月21日周二 18:36写道： > It seems that the calcite-1.33.0 tag is missing both from GitHub and GitBox > remote; I only see calcite-1.33.0-rc0. > Not sure why it is not there but I think we should add it. > > Best, > Stamatis > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 10:

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

It seems that the calcite-1.33.0 tag is missing both from GitHub and GitBox remote; I only see calcite-1.33.0-rc0. Not sure why it is not there but I think we should add it. Best, Stamatis On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 10:49 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > I said I’d update reporter. Sorry I didn’t get to it.

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I said I’d update reporter. Sorry I didn’t get to it. Jess, Several improvements to history.md were discussed in the PR. Do you intend to commit these to main? I was surprised that they weren’t in the 'Prepare for next development iteration’ commit. Julian > On Feb 9, 2023, at 6:51 AM, Stamat

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Cool then I will use 2023-02-06 in JIRA and update the reporter as well. Thanks for the confirmation! On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 3:49 PM Jess Balint wrote: > Thanks for noticing this Stamatis. I used the release date of 2023-02-06 as > this was when the artifact was published. > * I'm not sure what

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Thanks for noticing this Stamatis. I used the release date of 2023-02-06 as this was when the artifact was published. * I'm not sure what to do about the downloads page if the date comes from the release post https://calcite.apache.org/news/2023/02/07/release_1.33.0/. We shouldn't change the URL be

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

The https://reporter.apache.org/ service does not have the 1.33.0 release. The 1.33.0 release also appears unreleased in JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/CALCITE/versions/12352272 I was planning to fill those in but I am not sure which date to pick: * The release date in downloads [1]

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Great work Jess, thanks a lot for being the RM! On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 12:57 AM Jess Balint wrote: > Release is complete and main branch is open for commits! Thanks for your > patience. > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 1:42 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > > > The date can be whatever you decide as release ma

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Release is complete and main branch is open for commits! Thanks for your patience. On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 1:42 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > The date can be whatever you decide as release manager. It’s important > that the date in the news item matches, because the downloads page is > generated from t

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

The date can be whatever you decide as release manager. It’s important that the date in the news item matches, because the downloads page is generated from that. Back in the day I had trouble generating the site when local date <> UTC date, or when the news item date was in the future. When I s

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I thought it would be the svn commit date mentioned above (2023-02-06). Otherwise today works. I'm working on the site updates. On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 1:32 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > Happy to do that. > > What’s the release date? We have only ~4 hours left of 2023-02-07 UTC. > > > On Feb 7, 2023, a

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Happy to do that. What’s the release date? We have only ~4 hours left of 2023-02-07 UTC. > On Feb 7, 2023, at 11:27 AM, Jess Balint wrote: > > Can a PMC member please set the release date? > > r59936 at 2023-02-06 21:29:21 + (Mon, 06 Feb 2023) > Promoting Apache Calcite calcite-1.33.0-rc0

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Can a PMC member please set the release date? r59936 at 2023-02-06 21:29:21 + (Mon, 06 Feb 2023) Promoting Apache Calcite calcite-1.33.0-rc0 -> calcite-1.33.0 to release area If you are a PMC member of this project, we ask that you log on to: https://reporter.apache.org/addrelease.html?calcit

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Jess, Please let us know when main is open. > On Feb 7, 2023, at 8:59 AM, Jess Balint wrote: > > I ran it more than once because it failed the first time. I didn't realize > there might be side effects. Thanks for the confirmation. I'll setup the > announcement. > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 7:56

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I ran it more than once because it failed the first time. I didn't realize there might be side effects. Thanks for the confirmation. I'll setup the announcement. On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 7:56 AM Stamatis Zampetakis wrote: > Strange error; did you run the publishDist task more than once? > > Other

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Strange error; did you run the publishDist task more than once? Other than that, I see the release was propagated to the mirrors[1] so I don't think there is anything else pending apart from the remaining steps (announcements etc.). Best, Stamatis [1] https://dlcdn.apache.org/calcite/apache-calc

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

It looks as if the directory was successfully moved from dev to release. (Does anyone know the URL for the dist.apache.org svn commit log?) > On Feb 6, 2023, at 1:48 PM, Jess Balint wrote: > > I just tried to publish the release. The files are present here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/d

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I just tried to publish the release. The files are present here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/calcite/apache-calcite-1.33.0/ However the Gradle task failed with the following error. Is this failure a problem or is the release fully published? Thanks. Jess > Task :publishSvnDist FA

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Because we like keeping the git history linear. If we continued development during a release we would need to make a git merge commit (for the release notes at least). On 2023/02/02 19:38:40 Jess Balint wrote: > Speaking of which, why don't we branch off for the release to avoid > blocking commi

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Speaking of which, why don't we branch off for the release to avoid blocking commits? On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 1:29 PM Jess Balint wrote: > Sorry for delay! I'll get the release notes PR up in a few hours. > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 1:28 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > >> Jess, >> >> How long until the

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Sorry for delay! I'll get the release notes PR up in a few hours. On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 1:28 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > Jess, > > How long until the RC is ready for a vote? > > Main branch has been closed for over a week and it's hurting. > > Julian > > > On 2023/01/27 23:01:16 Julian Hyde wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Jess, How long until the RC is ready for a vote? Main branch has been closed for over a week and it's hurting. Julian On 2023/01/27 23:01:16 Julian Hyde wrote: > The particular failure I was referring to was this one: > > > Task :druid:javadoc > Picked up _JAVA_OPTIONS: -XX:GCTimeLimit=90

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

The particular failure I was referring to was this one: > Task :druid:javadoc Picked up _JAVA_OPTIONS: -XX:GCTimeLimit=90 -XX:GCHeapFreeLimit=35 error: Error fetching URL: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/ (java.net.SocketException: Connection reset) in the "macOS (JDK 18

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Hello, I think that Julian was referring to CALCITE-5501 for the intermittent CI issue, a PR fixing it is now available. I have no problem waiting for the release to be rolled out before merging it, just wanted to reach out to see if you prefer

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Thanks, will get the release notes PR up shortly. On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 7:29 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > I have merged a fix for CALCITE-5489. Thanks to Tanner and TJ for their > help. > > There is one failure in the build, but I'm pretty sure it is > intermittent and is related to CI infrastructu

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I have merged a fix for CALCITE-5489. Thanks to Tanner and TJ for their help. There is one failure in the build, but I'm pretty sure it is intermittent and is related to CI infrastructure, not our code. Jess, Go ahead and make that RC. Julian On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:50 AM Julian Hyde wrote

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I added two tests. One for BigQuery's TIMESTAMP_DIFF(timestamp, timestamp, unit) and one for the standard TIMESTAMPDIFF(unit, timestamp, timestamp). This verifies that flag literals work for both functions. TIMESTAMP_DIFF(quarter, timestamp, timestamp) is an incorrect pattern whether it is a flag l

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I tried your PR https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3048/files. It fixes the bug, but the test cases you have included to not reproduce the bug. I think that TIMESTAMP_DIFF(quarter, TIMESTAMP ‘…’, ’TIMESTAMP ‘…’) is the problematic pattern, but you have tested TIMESTAMP_DIFF(TIMESTAMP ‘…’, ’T

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Yes I will be putting up a PR with a fix in the next hour or so. Sorry about the hold up! Tanner On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:09 AM Julian Hyde wrote: > I agree that this is a blocker. > > Sergey’s PR illustrates the problem but isn’t a great fix. The fix should > look for “flag” literals in order

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I agree that this is a blocker. Sergey’s PR illustrates the problem but isn’t a great fix. The fix should look for “flag” literals in order to distinguish between the function variants. The test case should be in a Quidem test rather than RexBuikderTest. Tanner, do you have time to work on a r

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

According to our Jira dashboard [1] it seems there's still one blocker issue for 1.33 [2] (it was categorized as blocker because it was a regression). I guess we should complete this ticket before starting the RC. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12333950 [2]

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Great, I'll start the build. Let's hold off on further commits please. On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 6:48 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > I have merged it: > > https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/20014b6c5b9b57d29248206f19d63ef50f7a5c0f > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 2:03 PM Jess Balint wrote: > > > > I'll

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I have merged it: https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/20014b6c5b9b57d29248206f19d63ef50f7a5c0f On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 2:03 PM Jess Balint wrote: > > I'll merge it and then start the rc build. > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 13:04 Julian Hyde wrote: > > > Oops, I have one more PR ready to merge [

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I'll merge it and then start the rc build. On Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 13:04 Julian Hyde wrote: > Oops, I have one more PR ready to merge [1]. If the main branch is not > yet closed, let me know, Jess. > > Julian > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5283 > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 8:

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Oops, I have one more PR ready to merge [1]. If the main branch is not yet closed, let me know, Jess. Julian [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5283 On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 8:14 AM Julian Hyde wrote: > > I agree. I merged some PRs last night (before I saw this email) but I agree

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I agree. I merged some PRs last night (before I saw this email) but I agree it’s time for an RC. I’ll stop pushing to main. Have at it, Jess! Julian > On Jan 24, 2023, at 2:03 PM, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote: > > Thanks for staying on top of this Jess! > > Apart from the two JIRAs marked as b

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Thanks for staying on top of this Jess! Apart from the two JIRAs marked as blockers (regressions from 1.32.0) I don't think we should wait much more for getting the release out. Best, Stamatis On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:59 PM Jess Balint wrote: > The Avatica release is out. I've done what I ca

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

The Avatica release is out. I've done what I can on outstanding reviews: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12333950 Do we have any final requests for PRs to be merged or should I create the rc build? On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 2:20 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > I have cr

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I have created a jira case to track this release: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5481 Also, I am proposing to make a quick Avatica 1.23 release. If the plans work out, it will be ready for inclusion in Calcite 1.33 from Thursday. Julian On 2023/01/05 20:21:03 Julian Hyde wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Good idea. I have started reviewing those two cases. Reviewers are still needed for the other cases. Julian > On Jan 5, 2023, at 3:39 AM, Dmitry Sysolyatin wrote: > > It will be also good to review and include to release > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5405 and > https://issu

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

It will be also good to review and include to release https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5405 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5407. I am not familiar with mongodb adapter On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 12:24 PM Stamatis Zampetakis wrote: > I added https://issues.apache.org/j

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I added https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2884 to the list. I am finalizing the patch right now and will get this in a few hours. I removed the fixVersion from https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5427 (I am working on it) since there is no rush to get it in 1.33.0. Unfortunate

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

According to the dashboard [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12333950 ] there are 6 open issues, all of which have pull requests. Can we have volunteers to review/merge these in the ne

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Happy New Year everyone! I am going to do a RC build this week if there are no objections. On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 5:27 PM Bertil Chapuis wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I just merged CALCITE-5417 after incorporating Julian's feedback. I > believe this was the final issue that needed to be resolved

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Hello Everyone, I just merged CALCITE-5417 after incorporating Julian's feedback. I believe this was the final issue that needed to be resolved before the release. Thanks a lot to Grigory for his help and for releasing new versions of proj4j early and often. Best, Bertil > On 15 Dec 2022, at

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

@Jess I think we should wait for [1], which is a cleaner solution for the Proj4j issue, better than the initial quick-fix that was committed some days ago [2]. The PR seems in a good shape (thanks Bertil and Julian for your work in this one!), and hopefully it will be merged soon. @Sean, no, at th

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Are there plans to release a new version of Avatica(1.23) to be included in Calcite 1.33.0? Thanks, Sean > On Dec 14, 2022, at 3:47 PM, Jess Balint wrote: > > I have reviewed a few PRs. The Proj4j fix has been merged. Do we have any > more bandwidth for reviews or anybody asking for reviews?

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I have reviewed a few PRs. The Proj4j fix has been merged. Do we have any more bandwidth for reviews or anybody asking for reviews? Otherwise, I can start the RC build soon. On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 6:07 AM Ruben Q L wrote: > Thanks Jess for being RM of 1.33, and thanks Benchao for volunteering a

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

I just made a PR [1] that should address CALITE-5399 [2]. As discussed on Jira [2], the proposed solution should be sufficient. Making Proj4J as a compileOnly dependency should prevent the jar and the EPSG dataset from being included in any distribution of Calcite. When a user will call a spati

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Yes, we must fix Proj4j (CALITE-5399) before 1.33. I believe Bertil is working on it. > On Nov 28, 2022, at 4:06 AM, Ruben Q L wrote: > > Thanks Jess for being RM of 1.33, and thanks Benchao for volunteering as RM. > The updated list for future releases will be as follows: > - 1.33.0 Jess Balin

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Thanks Jess for being RM of 1.33, and thanks Benchao for volunteering as RM. The updated list for future releases will be as follows: - 1.33.0 Jess Balint - 1.34.0 Duan Xiong - 1.35.0 Benchao Li There are currently 14 unresolved issues for 1.33: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Hi Ruben, Thanks for the note. I'm available for RM duty. Here's the list of issues currently outstanding: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20CALCITE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.33.0%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20%22In%20Review%22%2C%20%22In%20I

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Thanks Ruben for pushing this forward, I can do one, put me in the list please. Ruben Q L 于2022年11月11日周五 17:20写道： > Hello, > > It's been two months since our last release [1], if we want to keep our > rhythm, I'd suggest to produce the next one before the end of the year. > > As usual, according

[DISCUSS] Towards Calcite 1.33.0

Hello, It's been two months since our last release [1], if we want to keep our rhythm, I'd suggest to produce the next one before the end of the year. As usual, according to our Jira dashboard [2] and Github [3], there are many pending issues that could / should be part of the release. I'd propos