Updating subject line to indicate final result. On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 9:57 AM Divjot Arora via dev <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > >
