+1 (binding)  - Also I don't think we really need a vote on this since it
should be what is already happening :) But no problem doing one. What we
really need is more committer approvals on the pr

On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 9:32 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