+1 On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:13 PM Péter Váry <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025, 04:16 Steve Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 (nb) >> Thanks, >> Steve Zhang >> >> >> >> On Feb 24, 2025, at 6:32 PM, Renjie Liu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 7:00 AM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Thanks >>> Szehon >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 2:52 PM [email protected] <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 12:26 PM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025, 11:00 AM Russell Spitzer < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 12:55 PM Fokko Driesprong <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Recently, there was confusion >>>>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/w403yzmpy9n9swcpwl2dcj2skdc0dskg> about >>>>>>> valid values for the current-snapshot-id, which led to implementation >>>>>>> notes <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12334> in the spec. >>>>>>> Thanks for the reviews so far and to Daniel for the additional >>>>>>> historical >>>>>>> context on snapshot ID generation. Since there were a couple of >>>>>>> reviews, and everything has been addressed, I would like to raise a >>>>>>> vote to >>>>>>> add this to the spec. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ ] +1 Add the implementation notes to the spec >>>>>>> [ ] +0 >>>>>>> [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> Fokko >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>
