+1 (binding) On Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 2:52 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:53 AM Prashant Singh <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Thanks, >> Prashant Singh >> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:49 AM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:13 AM Sung Yun <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>> >>>> On 2026/06/25 16:48:20 Ryan Blue wrote: >>>> > +1 (binding) >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 9:24 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > +1(binding) >>>> > > >>>> > > Yufei >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 9:13 AM Russell Spitzer < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> +1 (binding) >>>> > >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:45 AM Alexandre Dutra < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> > >> wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 5:03 PM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > +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 >>>> > >>> >>>> > >> >>>> > >>>> >>>
