+1 (binding) On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 1:27 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 12:18 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1(binding) >> Yufei >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:38 AM Prashant Singh <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> Best, >>> Prashant Singh >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:14 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 9:54 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Eduard, >>>>> >>>>> I will maintain my (non-binding) vote from 2024. >>>>> >>>>> However, the initial email on this vote mentions spec wording changes >>>>> in PR [10877]. Yet, this PR is just an impl. change in the java library >>>>> (now). >>>>> >>>>> The spec change appears to be in PR [14448] now. >>>>> >>>>> [10877] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10877 >>>>> >>>>> [14448] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14448 >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Dmitri. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 12:27 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We discussed this topic today in the Iceberg Catalog sync and people >>>>>> asked to bump this VOTE thread again as the VOTE is essentially still >>>>>> alive. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 10:45 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> While I agree that the configurable separator is the best solution >>>>>>> that balances trade-offs, I don't think that we should move forward when >>>>>>> there has been a veto from the community. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In Iceberg and most ASF communities, votes are intended to confirm >>>>>>> consensus --- not to make decisions. Since we don't have consensus we >>>>>>> should continue discussion and see if we can address Robert's rationale >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> his veto. (Which was, unfortunately, in a different thread that I'd >>>>>>> have to >>>>>>> dig up.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ryan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 9:07 AM Xuanwo <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 (no-binding) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personally I don't want this change, but I haven't found any other >>>>>>>> ways to address issue #10338. It seems that this proposal is the best >>>>>>>> solution available. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025, at 23:36, Zac Blanco wrote: >>>>>>>> > +1 (nb) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On 2024/08/20 07:05:45 Robert Stupp wrote: >>>>>>>> >> -1 (nb) >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> On 16.08.24 17:46, Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote: >>>>>>>> >> > +1 (nb) to the spec change. >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > Cheers, >>>>>>>> >> > Dmitri. >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 4:31 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner >>>>>>>> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > Hey everyone, >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > as I mentioned on the DISCUSS thread, this is providing a >>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>> >> > path forward for users of the V1 APIs (make the namespace >>>>>>>> >> > separator *configurable* instead of *hardcoded*) that are >>>>>>>> either >>>>>>>> >> > running into issue #10338 >>>>>>>> >> > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10338> or will >>>>>>>> >> > eventually when they upgrade their server stack. >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > The configuration part is *entirely optional* for REST >>>>>>>> server >>>>>>>> >> > implementers and there's no behavioral change for existing >>>>>>>> >> > installations. >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > Please vote on the wording changes in the REST Spec in >>>>>>>> #10877 >>>>>>>> >> > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10877>. >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > The vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > Thanks >>>>>>>> >> > Eduard >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> -- >>>>>>>> >> Robert Stupp >>>>>>>> >> @snazy >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Xuanwo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://xuanwo.io/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
