+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 9:28 AM Alex Stephen via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > Very excited for this! > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 5:39 PM Anurag Mantripragada > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Thanks Dan and Talat. >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 5:21 PM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> +1. This proposal is incredibly useful for disaster recovery use cases with >>> Iceberg. Thank you for driving this! >>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 4:50 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 Thanks Dan and Talat! >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 5:23 PM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hey everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to start a vote to add relative paths to the v4 spec as >>>>> defined in PR #15630. >>>>> >>>>> This vote confirms the agreed-upon direction for relative paths in v4. >>>>> Changes can still happen until we finalize the v4 spec. >>>>> >>>>> Please review the PR and vote within the next 72 hours. >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 Add relative paths to the v4 spec >>>>> [ ] +0 >>>>> [ ] -1 Do not add relative paths (please provide reasoning) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Dan
