+1 for keeping the name as-is with explicit documentation. (I too don't love the name, but it doesn't seem worth the effort of a breaking change)
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 10:18 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > I lean towards keeping it as "added-rows" and documenting very clearly > what it actually is. > > Christian, that is the approach we are taking in the PR. Feedback so far > suggests that the overhead/impact of renaming outweighs the benefit. We > will just focus on clarifying the spec and Javadoc > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 9:58 AM Christian Thiel < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I am unsure about the name. I like "assigned-rows" much more as a name. >> Changing the name later however would be a problem for the REST Spec >> (currently neither added-rows nor assigned-rows is in it). Renaming the >> field for v4 would be a breaking change for the rest spec which should be >> avoided - unless we send "added-rows" indefinitely. Deviating with REST >> from the spec also isn't nice. >> I lean towards keeping it as "added-rows" and documenting very clearly >> what it actually is. >> >> On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 16:55, Russell Spitzer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1, I also am fine with the name. >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 10:30 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> In the 1.10.0 RC5 voting thread >>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/rt4tk652wmw5ht9gb34dhrx1gwgolzkh>, >>>> Christian brought up an inconsistency issue between the spec and the Java >>>> implementation. Spec removed the `added-rows` while the Java implementation >>>> continued to use and encode it. >>>> >>>> After some discussion, the consensus is to bring it back in the spec. >>>> Otherwise, the REST catalog server would need to read the manifest list >>>> file to compute the number to increment the table's next-row-id when >>>> writing metadata.json. This would also restore the consistency between the >>>> spec and Java impl. >>>> >>>> The field name is not accurate anymore. It should actually be >>>> `assigned-rows`. But for compatibility reasons, we think it is better to >>>> keep it as it is. We will clarify its purpose in the spec language. >>>> >>>> Here is the PR that rectifies the spec. >>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14048 >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Steven >>>> >>>
