+1 (non-binding) On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 4:29 AM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree with Ryan that this vote is mainly for the spec change. > > I will help review the parquet-java PR as I have just added the new > IEEE 754 total order. > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 10:08 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I assume Ryan's +1 means he is comfortable with the Java implementation > > > > The Java implementation needs to be reviewed like other PRs. My vote here > > is that I think the direction and the spec changes look correct, which is > > the scope of this vote: "adopting the format change described in GH-583: > > Define ordering for INT96 timestamps" > > > > If you're unsure, just reach out and ask. I would also recommend not > voting > > based on opinions expressed by others. If you're unsure or haven't had > time > > to review, it's perfectly fine to let the vote pass or fail on its > merits. > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 2:56 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I assume Ryan's +1 means he is comfortable with the Java > implementation > > > > > > The Java implementation needs to be reviewed like other PRs. My vote > here > > > is that I think the direction and the spec changes look correct, which > is > > > the scope of this vote: "adopting the format change described in > GH-583: > > > Define ordering for INT96 timestamps" > > > > > > If you're unsure, please reach out and ask. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:57 AM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 (binding) > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 5:00 AM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> > +1 (binding) > > >> > > > >> > I just went through the spec change and it looks good. > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 6:24 PM Andrew Lamb <[email protected] > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > +1 > > >> > > > > >> > > ( with regards to older versions of arrow-rs panic'ing, We can > also > > >> > release > > >> > > patched versions of older releases if it becomes a problem in > > >> practice) > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 4:17 AM Micah Kornfield < > > >> [email protected]> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > +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 > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >
