+1 (binding)

Kind regards,
Fokko

On 2026/05/15 08:04:51 Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote:
> +1 (binding)
> 
> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 8:32 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > I left some minor comments regarding syntax and grammar issues. It will be
> > good to address them before merging.
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:47 AM huaxin gao <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1 (non-binding)
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:39 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 (binding)
> >>> thanks for aligning the spec
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:33 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1 (binding)
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for getting this clarification done.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1 (non-binding)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho <[email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for tackling this !
> >>>>>> Szehon
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic <
> >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Iceberg community!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for
> >>>>>>> geospatial type.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as
> >>>>>>> either being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed 
> >>>>>>> to be
> >>>>>>> populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed 
> >>>>>>> formats, or
> >>>>>>> are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the 
> >>>>>>> wording so
> >>>>>>> that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> P.S
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well:
> >>>>>>>  - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f
> >>>>>>>  - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Milan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> 

Reply via email to