+1 (non-binding)

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 11:35 AM Honah J. <[email protected]> wrote:

> +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/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

Reply via email to