The vote passes with 9 binding +1s and 11 non-binding +1s, and no 0s or -1s.
Thanks everyone for the voting. I will merge the spec PR. On Sun, Oct 11, 2026 at 8:42 AM Maninder Parmar < [email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > Thanks for adding this Steven! This will help greatly to reason about > transactional consistency. > I do want us to consider extending timestamp-ms to higher precision > timestamp-ns (nanoseconds) to allow for greater transaction throughput. > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 6:55 PM Hongyue Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) and thanks Steven! >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 2:53 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 11:03 AM Xuanwo <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> I support requiring newly committed v4 snapshots to have a timestamp-ms >>>> strictly greater than their parent on the same branch, while leaving root >>>> snapshots, pre-upgrade snapshots and v1-v3 behavior unchanged. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Xuanwo >>>> >>>
