+1 (non-binding) Posted some minor comments but overall good to have them!
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:27 PM Andrei Tserakhau via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > чт, 25 июн. 2026 г., 16:20 Manu Zhang <[email protected]>: >> >> +1 (non-binding). I'm really excited about the use cases it can unblock. >> >> Thanks, >> Manu >> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 1:27 PM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> Went over it, it seems a nice elegant definition. >>> Thanks >>> Szehon >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 9:00 PM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 7:26 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 (binding) >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 3:52 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to start a vote to adopt the new expressions spec. This spec >>>>>> defines the minimal structure and behavior of expressions that Iceberg >>>>>> formats need to store and exchange. This is intended to clean up >>>>>> expressions used in the REST catalog spec (exchanging query filters) and >>>>>> to enable new use cases that require expressions to be stored in >>>>>> metadata, including expression defaults (`current_timestamp()`) and >>>>>> `CHECK` constraints (`col < 360.0`). >>>>>> >>>>>> This spec is PR #16652. Thank you to everyone that has discussed this in >>>>>> community syncs or reviewed the design doc and PR! >>>>>> >>>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours: >>>>>> >>>>>> [ ] +1: Adopt the expressions spec >>>>>> [ ] +0: . . . >>>>>> [ ] -1: Do not add the spec because . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ryan
