Could you please take a look at this PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/18349? This is how I imagine it.
Any ideas or feedback? Neelesh Salian <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. okt. 2., P, 0:44): > I kept the Spec changes in for consistency since we hadn't discussed the > removal anywhere prior to this thread. > Saw them in the notes as early as 1.5.0. > > I like the idea of the dedicated changelog for the spec alone. > We can always clean up as we go along and move things around. > > Thanks for starting the thread, Peter. > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 3:21 PM Hongyue Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +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 >>> >>>
