+1 (binding) Thanks!
Kind regards, Fokko On 2026/06/11 20:25:43 Szehon Ho wrote: > +1 (binding) > Thanks > Szehon > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 11:31 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +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 > >>>> > >>> >
