+1 (non-binding)

On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 9:06 AM Matt Topol <[email protected]> wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 10:32 AM Junwang Zhao <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 5:22 PM Andrei Tserakhau via dev
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Following the discussion thread [1], I'd like to call a vote on the
>> > spec clarification in PR #16446 [2].
>> >
>> > Summary of the change:
>> > - The `day` partition transform's result type in the transform table is
>> >   changed from `int` to `date`, matching the long-standing default
>> >   behavior of Java, PyIceberg, Rust, and C++ (all of which write the
>> >   Avro `date` logical type in manifests).
>> > - A note is added clarifying that readers must also accept plain `int`
>> >   values for the `day` transform, interpreting each as a date in days
>> >   since 1970-01-01. (Reader tolerance is also inherited from the Avro
>> >   spec, which requires readers to ignore unrecognized logical-type
>> >   annotations.)
>> >
>> > This is a clarification, not a behavioral change: the physical
>> > representation (a 4-byte day count) is unchanged, and no existing
>> > manifests are affected. It documents what implementations already do
>> > and resolves an ambiguity that has been re-litigated several times
>> > (issue #16414 [3], and most recently a real interop failure in
>> > iceberg-go #1176 [4]).
>> >
>> > Per the contributor guide, changes under format/ require a vote even
>> > for clarifications, hence this thread.
>> >
>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>> >
>> > [ ] +1 Approve the spec clarification
>> > [ ] +0
>> > [ ] -1 Do not approve (please provide reasons)
>> >
>> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/wnhvdmwc3b1dxc2ogk7po682pky12cps
>> > [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16446
>> > [3] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/16414
>> > [4] https://github.com/apache/iceberg-go/pull/1176
>> >
>> > Here's my +1 (non-binding).
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Andrei
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> Junwang Zhao
>>
>

Reply via email to