JeroenSchmidt commented on PR #3649: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/pull/3649#issuecomment-4963043938
> I'm personally in favor of making those changes. I understand how a follow-up PR would be cleaner, but I worry about a situation where we merge this in + don't get around to the follow-up. > > I'm happy to do a review as-is. Which works better for you? Hi @rambleraptor Thank you for the response. Would it be possible for you to review it as is while I look into the open issue with chaining? Depending on the size of the change I can then add it as a commit or raise another PR while this one gets reviewed. I'm still getting familiar with the inner workings of this library so some guidance would help. Do you know if it's safe for me to construct the refs to point to in fast_forward by inspecting `self._transaction.table_metadata.refs` before any commits occur? In other words, are there any fail states or edge cases that I would need to consider if I start referencing refs mentioned in `self._transaction.table_metadata.refs` that are not committed yet? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
