+1 (binding), I assume Ryan's +1 means he is comfortable with the Java implementation (which isn't approved yet but all of his comments were addressed), and Rust implementation is done by Ed who is a maintainer of that code base.
I'll call out the small risk that the sort order is being written unconditionally in the implementations. This presents a risk for Arrow rust readers prior Arrow-rs 57, where new sort orders will cause panics, but given the Rust community feels it is safe to do this, I am OK with it. Cheers, Micah On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 3:43 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 > > >
