+1 for Andrew's proposal. On Sat, Sep 5, 2026 at 1:56 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
> + dev@iceberg > > (lesson learned, emailing 2 devlist might not be the best idea logistically > haha) > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 10:48 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for all the great discussions so far. I'm glad we found a solution > > that benefits the broader ecosystem. > > I'm +1 to moving to an apache-governed location, > > apache/datafusion-iceberg seems like a great place. I like the process > > Andrew proposed, happy to help with the logistics. > > > > Best, > > Kevin Liu > > > > PS I have also removed the iceberg python binding that exports > > DataFusion's TableProvider, so that's 1 less thing we have to worry > about. > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/3036 > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 6:28 AM Gabriel Musat <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Sounds like a good direction, +1 (non binding) > >> > >> I can help porting the commit history of the DataFusion-Iceberg > >> integration to the new repo if PMCs agree. > >> > >> On 2026/09/04 12:27:30 Andrew Lamb wrote: > >> > I think this is a great idea as well -- thank you for bringing it up > and > >> > for the great discussions so far. > >> > > >> > While at VLDB this past week, I spoke to at least three people from > >> > companies adding Apache Iceberg support to their products. All of them > >> had > >> > to fork iceberg-rust for one reason or another. > >> > > >> > I think we have a huge need to improve our ability to work together > and > >> > accelerate everyone's efforts. Giving the DataFusion integration > access > >> to > >> > more expert maintainers with bandwidth I think will help everyone. > >> > > >> > There seems to be consensus that we should move the integration code > to > >> > DataFusion governance, and that it should remain in the ASF, though > some > >> > open technical questions remain. > >> > > >> > If that is the case, I propose the following specific process: > >> > 1. Create the new gitub repository in Apache for the code (e.g. > >> > apache/datafusion-iceberg) > >> > 2. Create a PR in the new repo with the proposed code > >> > 3. Hold a formal vote on the iceberg dev list to move the integration > >> code > >> > to DataFusion > >> > 4. Hold a formal vote on the DataFusion dev list to accept the new > code > >> > > >> > I am happy to help with the logistics (e.g. ASF INFRA ticket to create > >> the > >> > new repo, votes, etc) but I am not expert enough to create the > proposed > >> PR. > >> > > >> > Please let me know your thoughts, > >> > Andrew > >> > (PMC Chair of DataFusion) > >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 9:48 PM Renjie Liu <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > To add more background about the relationship between comet and > >> datafusion > >> > > for those who are not familiar with them. > >> > > > >> > > Apache datafusion is a popular extensible compute engine written in > >> rust. > >> > > Apache comet is an apache spark accelerator builton on apache > >> datafusion, > >> > > and also a subproject of apache datafusion. > >> > > > >> > > datafusion-iceberg is an apache datafusion extension built on > >> iceberg-rust, > >> > > and comet's iceberg support is built on it. > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 9:39 PM Andy Grove <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > +1 for moving to DataFusion PMC. The iceberg-datafusion > integration > >> is > >> > > > very important for Comet. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 11:42 PM Xuanwo <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > TBH, I also support moving to the DataFusion PMC. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > - DataFusion is the largest dependency in iceberg-datafusion. > >> > > > > - The largest downstream user of iceberg-datafusion is Comet, > >> which > >> > > > shares many of the same PMC members as DataFusion. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > It feels natural to be part of the DataFusion PMC. As long as DF > >> PMC is > >> > > > willing to accept this project, it LGTM. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026, at 12:03, Renjie Liu wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I don't think the testing should be a blocker of moving > >> > > > iceberg-datafusion out of iceberg-rust repo. From what I learn, > >> most of > >> > > the > >> > > > sqllogictests are in pr of modifying iceberg-datafusion > integration, > >> > > there > >> > > > are only few cases where we rely on sqllogictests to verify > >> features. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > How would that sound for the `iceberg-rust` community to > grant a > >> > > > couple of Apache DataFusion PMCs committer access to the > repository, > >> > > > limited to the `iceberg-datafusion` crate via a CODEOWNERS file, > so > >> that > >> > > > they can help push reviews and PRs forward independently? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I'm not sure if this is feasible, but moving the > >> iceberg-datafusion > >> > > > crate to apache datafusion project sounds a more reasonable > >> approach to > >> > > me. > >> > > > It's still governed by Apache, and most of the code is related to > >> > > > DataFusion, so I think the DataFusion community is in a better > >> position > >> > > to > >> > > > define the vision and design for it. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 10:45 PM Gabriel Musat < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Hi everyone, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Based on these two facts: > >> > > > > - There's a current reviewer bandwidth problem that hurts > >> development > >> > > > velocity of the `iceberg-datafusion` crate currently hosted under > >> > > > `apache/iceberg-rust`. > >> > > > > - There is value in maintaining the `iceberg-datafusion` crate > >> inside > >> > > > `apache/iceberg-rust` for testing, design and governance. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > How would that sound for the `iceberg-rust` community to grant a > >> couple > >> > > > of Apache DataFusion PMCs committer access to the repository, > >> limited to > >> > > > the `iceberg-datafusion` crate via a CODEOWNERS file, so that they > >> can > >> > > help > >> > > > push reviews and PRs forward independently? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Based on review history, I'd propose Matt Butrovich and Tim > >> Saucer as > >> > > > two good candidates, but this would be completely up to the > >> > > `iceberg-rust` > >> > > > community. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On 2026/08/26 17:56:19 Shawn Chang wrote: > >> > > > > > Hi all, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Summarizing the discussion so far, including a few points > >> raised in > >> > > > today’s > >> > > > > > community sync. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > There seems to be general agreement that the current > DataFusion > >> > > > integration > >> > > > > > has a velocity/reviewer bandwidth problem, and moving it to a > >> > > separate > >> > > > > > repository could help DataFusion contributors iterate more > >> > > > independently. > >> > > > > > At the same time, several open questions remain: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > - > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Whether repo separation is the right solution, versus > >> expanding > >> > > > > > DataFusion reviewer/committer participation in > iceberg-rust. > >> > > > > > - > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Where the boundary should be between engine specific > >> integration > >> > > and > >> > > > > > Iceberg core functionality, and how to avoid duplicated or > >> forked > >> > > > Iceberg > >> > > > > > implementations. (how to avoid the case where > >> Iceberg-datafusion > >> > > > moving > >> > > > > > much faster than the core and eventually need a forked core > >> API > >> > > > > > implementation) > >> > > > > > - > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > How compatibility and end-to-end correctness testing should > >> work > >> > > > across > >> > > > > > repositories, since iceberg-rust still relies on DataFusion > >> for > >> > > > integration > >> > > > > > testing. > >> > > > > > - > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Where the integration should live and how to keep it under > >> Apache > >> > > > > > governance while making it easy for both Iceberg and > >> DataFusion > >> > > > > > contributors to maintain. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > So I think the main question is not only whether to move the > >> code, > >> > > but > >> > > > how > >> > > > > > to improve development velocity without losing the close > design, > >> > > > testing, > >> > > > > > and governance relationship between the engine integration and > >> > > > iceberg-rust > >> > > > > > core. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Shawn > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 4:14 AM Manu Zhang < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > +1 moving the DataFusion integration and tests into a > separate > >> > > > > > > apache-governed repository. Can we bring this discussion to > >> the > >> > > > Community > >> > > > > > > Sync[1] this week? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YuGhUdukLP5gGiqCbk0A5_Wifqe2CZWgOd3TbhY3UQg/edit?tab=t.0 > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 3:37 PM Renjie Liu < > >> > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi, Matt: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Thanks for raising this. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> 1) Apache governance: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> I would +1 for putting this in an apache repo, for example > a > >> sub > >> > > > repo of > >> > > > > > >> datafusion project. Shawn has stated most of the reasons, > so > >> I > >> > > > don't want > >> > > > > > >> to repeat it again. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> 2) Where do tests live/how tests should be maintained? > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Initially I was thinking about putting sqllogictest in > >> > > > iceberg-rust, but > >> > > > > > >> after second thought I'm leaning towards to put it in the > >> new repo > >> > > > for two > >> > > > > > >> reasons: > >> > > > > > >> 1. It would be easier for developer of the > datafusion-iceberg > >> > > > integration > >> > > > > > >> to add tests > >> > > > > > >> 2. It would make the dependency graph and version release > >> easier. > >> > > > Though > >> > > > > > >> the dependency is on crate level rather than repo level, > the > >> > > > bi-direction > >> > > > > > >> dependency may make version management weird and difficult. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> The downside of this approach is that it's a little > >> unfriendly for > >> > > > > > >> iceberg-rust developers, but I think it's less frequent for > >> > > > iceberg-rust > >> > > > > > >> developers to add sqllogictests compared with > >> datafusion-iceberg > >> > > > developers. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> 3) Dropping DataFusion dependencies from pyiceberg-core > >> binding > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> I'm not quite familiar with this part, but it sounds > >> reasonable to > >> > > > me. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 6:50 AM Shawn Chang < > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >>> Hi Matt, > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> Thanks for raising this! I generally agree that we can > move > >> the > >> > > > > > >>> datafusion > >> > > > > > >>> integration to a separate repo if that helps more > DataFusion > >> > > > experts to > >> > > > > > >>> work on the integrations > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> On the three considerations: > >> > > > > > >>> 1) Apache governance: > >> > > > > > >>> I think this is my biggest concern so far. This could not > >> only > >> > > > affect > >> > > > > > >>> contributors, but also whether the downstream users could > >> > > continue > >> > > > to use > >> > > > > > >>> the integration. > >> > > > > > >>> Even if the code remains Apache-licensed, governance, > >> release of > >> > > > > > >>> artifacts, > >> > > > > > >>> and contribution policies can matter for adoption. > >> > > > > > >>> We should explore more about the option to keep it under > an > >> > > > > > >>> Apache-governed > >> > > > > > >>> repository. > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> 2) Where do tests live/how tests should be maintained? > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> I think this is closely related to the governance > question. > >> To > >> > > me, > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > >>> broader question is: *how do we make it easy for people > >> from both > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > >>> Iceberg Rust and DataFusion communities to maintain the > >> > > > integration?* > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> If we move it to a non-Apache repository, I worry that it > >> could > >> > > > > > >>> eventually > >> > > > > > >>> look somewhat like the current Iceberg Java <> Trino > >> integration: > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > >>> integration primarily lives on the Trino side and is > >> therefore > >> > > > mostly > >> > > > > > >>> maintained by people who are already deeply involved in > >> Trino. > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> There is an important difference here, though. For Iceberg > >> Java, > >> > > > Spark is > >> > > > > > >>> arguably the primary engine integration and has a large > >> Iceberg > >> > > > > > >>> contributor > >> > > > > > >>> base around it, so having the Trino integration maintained > >> more > >> > > > > > >>> independently is relatively natural. In Iceberg Rust > today, > >> > > > DataFusion > >> > > > > > >>> has > >> > > > > > >>> a much more central role. It is by far the most mature > >> engine > >> > > > integration > >> > > > > > >>> in the project, is used by our SQLLogicTest > infrastructure, > >> and > >> > > > many > >> > > > > > >>> users > >> > > > > > >>> building on Iceberg Rust are also building on DataFusion. > >> The > >> > > > overlap > >> > > > > > >>> between the two communities is therefore much larger. > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> Because of that, I would prefer that extracting the > >> integration > >> > > > does not > >> > > > > > >>> turn it into something that is effectively owned only by > the > >> > > > DataFusion > >> > > > > > >>> side. Ideally, both Iceberg Rust contributors and > DataFusion > >> > > > contributors > >> > > > > > >>> should be able to review changes, maintain compatibility, > >> and > >> > > > evolve the > >> > > > > > >>> integration together. > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> 3) Dropping DataFusion dependencies from pyiceberg-core > >> binding: > >> > > I > >> > > > think > >> > > > > > >>> it > >> > > > > > >>> makes sense to make things simpler and have left a comment > >> on the > >> > > > github > >> > > > > > >>> issue with more detailed thoughts: > >> > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/3036 > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> Best, > >> > > > > > >>> Shawn > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 11:23 AM Matt Butrovich < > >> > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >>> wrote: > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > Hello all, > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > I've never tried emailing two different project lists at > >> once, > >> > > > but it > >> > > > > > >>> was > >> > > > > > >>> > suggested that I do so to try to track the conversation > >> across > >> > > > both > >> > > > > > >>> > communities. We'll see how this threads on the mailing > >> lists. > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > There has been a GitHub Discussion > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/discussions/2992#discussioncomment-18082533 > >> > > > > > >>> , > >> > > > > > >>> > a GitHub Issue > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/3029, and > >> > > > > > >>> > it's been a long topic of conversation in the past two > >> weeks in > >> > > > both > >> > > > > > >>> the > >> > > > > > >>> > DataFusion and Iceberg Rust Community Calls to discuss > >> moving > >> > > the > >> > > > > > >>> > DataFusion integration from Iceberg Rust to a separate > >> > > > repository. I > >> > > > > > >>> will > >> > > > > > >>> > try to summarize some of the major points as I > understand > >> them, > >> > > > but the > >> > > > > > >>> > conversations are the ground truth and please feel free > to > >> > > > correct me > >> > > > > > >>> here. > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > The DataFusion TableProvider integration in Iceberg Rust > >> makes > >> > > > > > >>> DataFusion > >> > > > > > >>> > a dependency for Iceberg Rust. The integration exists > for > >> > > > multiple > >> > > > > > >>> reasons: > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > 1) an engine to execute Iceberg Rust's corpus of > >> sqllogictest > >> > > > files > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > 2) a TableProvider integration for DataFusion users to > >> interact > >> > > > with > >> > > > > > >>> > Iceberg tables > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > Some of the motivations to break out the integration: > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > 1) There have been a number of issues and pull requests > >> against > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > >>> > DataFusion TableProvider in Iceberg Rust as users want > to > >> add > >> > > > more > >> > > > > > >>> > features, and they often go stale. I don't believe there > >> are > >> > > many > >> > > > > > >>> > committers/PMC members familiar with or using the > >> DataFusion > >> > > > > > >>> integration. > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > 2) Iceberg Rust would like to stay as engine-agnostic as > >> > > > possible. A > >> > > > > > >>> > recent DataFusion Ballista integration was declined for > >> this > >> > > > reason > >> > > > > > >>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/2613. > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > 3) Other projects that rely on both Iceberg Rust and > >> DataFusion > >> > > > (e.g., > >> > > > > > >>> > Comet) are blocked by Iceberg Rust upgrading its > >> DataFusion and > >> > > > Arrow > >> > > > > > >>> > dependencies before they can upgrade. > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > Some considerations for both communities: > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > 1) Where would this DataFusion TableProvider live? Most > >> > > > specifically, > >> > > > > > >>> > would it be an Apache-governed project? As folks like > >> > > @andygrove > >> > > > point > >> > > > > > >>> out, > >> > > > > > >>> > this can affect whether some community members could > >> contribute > >> > > > to it. > >> > > > > > >>> > There is a datafusion-contrib org for DataFusion-related > >> > > > projects to > >> > > > > > >>> have > >> > > > > > >>> > visibility but no Apache governance, but there may be > >> options > >> > > to > >> > > > put it > >> > > > > > >>> > under an Apache repository. > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > 2) How would Iceberg Rust continue to run sqllogictests > >> for > >> > > > regression > >> > > > > > >>> > testing? Does this live in a different repository that > >> depends > >> > > > on this > >> > > > > > >>> new > >> > > > > > >>> > Iceberg Rust TableProvider crate? Would we be able to > >> test Pull > >> > > > > > >>> Requests on > >> > > > > > >>> > Iceberg Rust with sqllogictests? > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > 3) @kevinqliu is familiar with the Python bindings in > >> Iceberg > >> > > > Rust, > >> > > > > > >>> and I > >> > > > > > >>> > believe that DataFusion dependency might be removed as > >> well, > >> > > but > >> > > > that > >> > > > > > >>> is > >> > > > > > >>> > not the core focus of this conversation. He has also > >> proposed > >> > > > removing > >> > > > > > >>> that > >> > > > > > >>> > and using the DataFusion Python bindings directly. > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > I'm sure I'm forgetting things, but this email is long > >> enough. > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > Thanks everyone for the discussion thus far, and looking > >> > > forward > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > >>> more > >> > > > > > >>> > input on this. > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > -Matt > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Xuanwo > >> > > > > > >> > > > > https://xuanwo.io/ > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> >
