+1 (non-binding) On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 1:34 PM Fokko Driesprong <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > Thanks! > > Kind regards, > Fokko > > On 2026/06/11 20:25:43 Szehon Ho wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > Thanks > > Szehon > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 11:31 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 11:00 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> +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 > > >>>> > > >>> > > >
