I will plan to run both voting threads -- I think first we need a repo and a PR to vote on. We will work on that starting tomorrow
On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 7:52 PM Neelesh Salian <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good to me. Feel free to start both threads. Glad to see this going > forward. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 16:46 Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think we should do a formal vote in a separate thread -- for both > > communities > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 7:11 PM Neelesh Salian <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Yes, to the new repo apache/datafusion-iceberg > >> > >> Question to the folks here: Do we need a formal community vote across > >> communities or this thread suffices? > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 03:37 Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > Thank for all the feedback so far -- unless anyone has concerns, I > will > >> > file a request a new repository for apache/datafusion-iceberg tomorrow > >> > > >> > Andrew > >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 5:49 AM Renjie Liu <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > +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] > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
