+1 (binding)

On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 11:00 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote:

> +1 binding
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 9:47 AM Russell Spitzer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)  - Also I don't think we really need a vote on this since it
>> should be what is already happening :) But no problem doing one. What we
>> really need is more committer approvals on the pr
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 9:32 AM Junwang Zhao <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 5:22 PM Andrei Tserakhau via dev
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Following the discussion thread [1], I'd like to call a vote on the
>>> > spec clarification in PR #16446 [2].
>>> >
>>> > Summary of the change:
>>> > - The `day` partition transform's result type in the transform table is
>>> >   changed from `int` to `date`, matching the long-standing default
>>> >   behavior of Java, PyIceberg, Rust, and C++ (all of which write the
>>> >   Avro `date` logical type in manifests).
>>> > - A note is added clarifying that readers must also accept plain `int`
>>> >   values for the `day` transform, interpreting each as a date in days
>>> >   since 1970-01-01. (Reader tolerance is also inherited from the Avro
>>> >   spec, which requires readers to ignore unrecognized logical-type
>>> >   annotations.)
>>> >
>>> > This is a clarification, not a behavioral change: the physical
>>> > representation (a 4-byte day count) is unchanged, and no existing
>>> > manifests are affected. It documents what implementations already do
>>> > and resolves an ambiguity that has been re-litigated several times
>>> > (issue #16414 [3], and most recently a real interop failure in
>>> > iceberg-go #1176 [4]).
>>> >
>>> > Per the contributor guide, changes under format/ require a vote even
>>> > for clarifications, hence this thread.
>>> >
>>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>> >
>>> > [ ] +1 Approve the spec clarification
>>> > [ ] +0
>>> > [ ] -1 Do not approve (please provide reasons)
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/wnhvdmwc3b1dxc2ogk7po682pky12cps
>>> > [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16446
>>> > [3] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/16414
>>> > [4] https://github.com/apache/iceberg-go/pull/1176
>>> >
>>> > Here's my +1 (non-binding).
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Andrei
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards
>>> Junwang Zhao
>>>
>>

Reply via email to