+1 (binding) for adding this to version control On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 1:30 PM Péter Váry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Seems like a good way forward, even if we need to iron out the details. > We will need a good compression for the delete vectors if we would like to > store then in the metadata files. > > +1 for adding an initial draft > > Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. jún. 9., K, > 2:47): > >> I had a comment about the exception offsets, but +1 (binding) from me. >> >> Thanks, >> Amogh Jahagirdar >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 6:08 PM Micah Kornfield <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding for me). >>> >>> I left some comments that I think might help with clarity for >>> implementers. >>> >>> Ryan, given the limited nature of the vote, what do you see as the >>> decision factors for actually using this? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Micah >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 4:21 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 from me >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 9:01 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I mentioned in the thread on adding a bitmap format for small bitmaps >>>>> that I think the next steps are to get a draft spec into git (PR >>>>> #16518 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16518>) and then >>>>> iterate on it and implementations. That will give us more information to >>>>> move forward with the Mumbling bitmap format in v4 metadata or not. >>>>> >>>>> This vote is to add the spec to version control. It does not mean that >>>>> we are using the format in tables or other places. Those uses will be >>>>> covered by future votes. >>>>> >>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours: >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1: Add the Mumbling bitmap spec >>>>> [ ] +0: . . . >>>>> [ ] -1: Do not add the spec to git because . . . >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Ryan >>>>> >>>>
