+1 (non-binding) On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 11:42 AM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 11:27 AM Hongyue Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 11:01 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 10:55 AM Matt Butrovich <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> Thanks for adding this clarification, Russell -- and to everyone who >>>> gave feedback on the PR already. >>>> >>>> -Matt >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 10:40 AM Russell Spitzer < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi y'all, >>>>> >>>>> It's been a while, and I think we already have consensus here >>>>> but I wanted to raise this vote for awareness/consensus before merging. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Scan planning has stated since #4272 >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/4272> that duplicate live file >>>>> paths in a snapshot produce undefined scan results. This PR makes that >>>>> expectation explicit as a snapshot invariant in the main body of the >>>>> spec.* >>>>> >>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours: >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the spec clarification in 17198 >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/17198> >>>>> [ ] +0 >>>>> [ ] -1 Do not approve (please provide reasons) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your time, >>>>> Russ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
