Thanks everyone for voting. The vote passes with 6 binding +1's, no +0's or -1's.
-- Div On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 2:54 PM Alkis Evlogimenos < [email protected]> wrote: > +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 >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >
