+1 to separate the binary release and spec change. Also ok with retrospectively removal for consistency.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 1:23 PM Jones, Danny via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > I’d be +1 (non-binding) for creating an iceberg-format repo. Ideally, we > might also retain the commit history (similar to the iceberg-rust > DataFusion move recently). I’ve wondered for a while now about appetite for > moving to an iceberg-format repo dedicated to spec changes similar to > Apache Parquet, thanks for raising this Kurtis. > > > > If not that, then a dedicated changelog in the spec as Kevin suggested > sounds like a good idea. > > > > Danny > > > > *From: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Reply to: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, 1 October 2026 at 20:59 > *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Subject: *RE: [EXTERNAL] [DISCUSS] Spec changes in release notes > > > > *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > the content is safe. > > > > +1 to removing them. > > > > Would there be any appetite for making an Iceberg-Format repo that drives > the website, holds docs, and where all specification changes are merged > into? This way the Java implementation can be separated structurally from > the specification changes. > > > > On Oct 1, 2026, at 12:21, Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1, we can retrospectively remove these from > https://iceberg.apache.org/releases/ > > > > And perhaps move them to a changelog in https://iceberg.apache.org/spec/ > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 11:12 AM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 I also had the same thought while reviewing it. > > > > Thanks > > Szehon > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 12:36 AM Péter Váry <[email protected]> > wrote: > > During the review of the 1.12.0 release notes, I have realized that we > include the spec changes in the java binary release notes, like: > > > > - Spec > > - Introduce SQL UDF specification (#14117) > > - Bring back added-rows in snapshot fields (#14048) > > - Clarify restrictions for geometry types in V3 (#14250) > > > > I think it is very missleading. The spec changes are released immediately > when the voting happens and the PRs merged or when the specific spec > version is finalized. There is no connection to the binary java releases > there. > > > > Shall we stop including them in the java release notes? > > > > We can have a different page dedicated to the spec version > changes/releases. > > > > Thanks, Peter > >
