Sorry for the late reply. The vote closed, so I'll just post my comments without voting here.
My reading of the spec change in PR #8982 [1] is that it is not normative. More specifically, REST catalog implementations that do not expose the full snapshot history in metadata JSON will not violate the spec. Therefore, I do not oppose this change, but I'd appreciate it if this point were explicitly mentioned in the spec text. I propose adding a phrase like "when the REST catalog makes the snapshot history available in the metadata JSON, time travel queries should be executed like this.... [existing spec text]. If a catalog does not expose the full snapshot history, time travel queries should provide clear messages in case they cannot find the appropriate snapshot". Thanks, Dmitri. [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8982 On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:15 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > The vote passes with: > > 5 "+1 Binding votes" > 3 "+1 Non-binding votes." > 0 "-1 votes" > > > Actions to be taken: > 1. Update the language/location of the clarification on time travel in > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8982 and then have a committer/PMC > member merge. I'll try to have this updated by Monday. > 2. Merge https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8981 (it seems there is > no further feedback on this). > > Thanks everyone for the feedback. > > > -Micah > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 9:03 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> added minor comments to the time travel PR. >> >> Best, >> Jack Ye >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 8:22 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> Thanks, Micah. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:29 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) on these spec clarifications >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Amogh Jahagirdar >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:08 PM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am +1 for the spec clarifications. >>>>> >>>>> I have left some comments for the time travel PR. we can discuss the >>>>> details in the PR itself before merging. In particular, I am wondering if >>>>> the time travel clarification can be add to the existing `snapshots` >>>>> section of the spec (instead of adding a new `implementation notes` >>>>> section) >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 3:54 PM Ryan Blue <b...@databricks.com.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Micah! >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 7:04 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 (non binding) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks ! >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 10:35 PM Micah Kornfield < >>>>>>> emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I'd like to raise on modifying the table specification with >>>>>>> clarifications on time travel and equality deletes [1][2]. The PRs have >>>>>>> links to prior mailing list discussions where there was apparent >>>>>>> consensus >>>>>>> that these were the expectations for functionality. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Possible votes: >>>>>>> > [ ] +1 Merge the PRs >>>>>>> > [ ] +0 >>>>>>> > [ ] -1 Do not merge the PRs because ... >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Thanks, >>>>>>> > Micah >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8982 >>>>>>> > [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8981 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Ryan Blue >>>>>> Databricks >>>>>> >>>>>
