+1 Thanks Dan and Talat for working on this!
Kind regards, Fokko On 2026/05/20 09:36:34 roryqi wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Gang Wu <[email protected]> 于2026年5月20日周三 16:58写道： > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 9:28 AM Alex Stephen via dev > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > Very excited for this! > > > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 5:39 PM Anurag Mantripragada > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 (non-binding) > > >> > > >> Thanks Dan and Talat. > > >> > > >> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 5:21 PM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> +1. This proposal is incredibly useful for disaster recovery use cases > > >>> with Iceberg. Thank you for driving this! > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 4:50 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> +1 Thanks Dan and Talat! > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 5:23 PM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hey everyone, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I would like to start a vote to add relative paths to the v4 spec as > > >>>>> defined in PR #15630. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This vote confirms the agreed-upon direction for relative paths in > > >>>>> v4. Changes can still happen until we finalize the v4 spec. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Please review the PR and vote within the next 72 hours. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [ ] +1 Add relative paths to the v4 spec > > >>>>> [ ] +0 > > >>>>> [ ] -1 Do not add relative paths (please provide reasoning) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>> Dan >
