+1 (binding) On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 4:07 AM Divjot Arora via dev <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi folks, > > I'd like to propose a vote on adopting the format change described > in GH-583: Define ordering for INT96 timestamps. This was proposed on the > mailing list [1] and in Github issue #583 [2]. > > The proposed spec changes can be found in > https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/584. We have reference > implementations in parquet-java ( > https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/3610) and arrow-rs ( > https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/10106) and the arrow-rs > implementation has been verified against a test file produced by > parquet-java (https://github.com/apache/parquet-testing/pull/115). > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > [ ] +1 Approve the proposed format change > [ ] +0 No opinion > [ ] -1 Do not approve (please provide specific reasons) > > Thanks, > Divjot Arora > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/tjsz7fo8vlmgtdrwjthtok4v8jf2ntx0 > [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/issues/583 >
