+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 1:38 PM huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 1:34 PM Fokko Driesprong <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +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 >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> >
