Looks great! Thank you. I added some comments to the PR. We should follow up and add IRC spec too, since that's seen the most changes recently
On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 9:31 AM Péter Váry <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>>
