Thanks Andrew. And thank you Gabriel for porting over the code, I've +1'ed the PR (https://github.com/apache/datafusion-iceberg/pull/1)
Happy to help start a vote on the iceberg side. Best, Kevin Liu On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 4:36 AM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> wrote: > The new repository is available: > https://github.com/apache/datafusion-iceberg > > Gabriel, can you take a look at making a proposed PR with the content to > move? > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 7:07 AM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have filed a INFR request to create the new repository: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-28379 >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 8:02 PM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > 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] >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
