+1 binding Thank you!
On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 9:47 AM Russell Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 >> >
