+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:08 PM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > Thanks > Szehon > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 11:24 AM Fokko Driesprong <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 (binding) >> >> On 2026/06/09 17:12:39 Russell Spitzer wrote: >> > +1 for having the draft up >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 11:32 AM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 (binding) >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 9:05 AM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> I'm +1 (non-binding) to get the spec in. >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 8:18 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner < >> > >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> +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 >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >
