Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Iceberg C++ 0.1.0

Thanks JB! We absolutely need your expertise on this! On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 2:08 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Congrats ! > > Unfortunately I didn’t have time to review the release before the end of the > vote. Sorry about that. > I see an issue on the LICENSE/NOTICE mixing source and bin

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Iceberg C++ 0.1.0

Congrats ! Unfortunately I didn’t have time to review the release before the end of the vote. Sorry about that. I see an issue on the LICENSE/NOTICE mixing source and binary distributions content. I will submit a PR to fix that. Regards JB Le lun. 15 sept. 2025 à 09:46, Gang Wu a écrit : > Hel

Re: [VOTE] Spec: bring back added-rows in the snapshot fields

+1 (non binding) Regards JB Le lun. 15 sept. 2025 à 06:35, Steven Wu a écrit : > Hi, > > I like to raise a vote on a small spec fix that brings back added-rows in > the snapshot fields. The spec issue was brought up by Christian Thiel in > the 1.10.0 RC5 voting thread >

Re: [DISCUSS] Iceberg REST Catalog Idempotency

Thanks for writing up the proposal! Makes sense to add idempotency to mutation requests. It would be helpful to add this feature to both the catalog test framework and the iceberg-rest-fixture

Re: [DISCUSS] FileFormat API proposal

Peter, thanks for summarizing the 4 options. Both 0 and 1 seem good to me, as they are explicit and easier to deprecate and remove the position deletes in the future. Maybe option 0 is a tiny bit better as it is similar to the existing FileWriterFactory API. I will leave PR related comments in the

Re: [VOTE] Spec: bring back added-rows in the snapshot fields

+1 (non-binding) On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 11:41 AM Yufei Gu wrote: > +1 > Yufei > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 11:36 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:32 PM Russell Spitzer < >> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 (bind) >>>

Re: [VOTE] Spec: bring back added-rows in the snapshot fields

+1 (non-binding) On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 3:08 AM Péter Váry wrote: > > +1 binding > > Prashant Singh ezt írta (időpont: 2025. szept. > 15., H, 11:59): >> >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Best, >> Prashant >> >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 1:56 AM Christian Thiel >> wrote: >>> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>

Re: [VOTE] Spec: bring back added-rows in the snapshot fields

+1 Yufei On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 11:36 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:32 PM Russell Spitzer < > russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 (bind) >> >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 1:25 PM Steve wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Mon

Re: [DISCUSS] Iceberg REST Catalog Idempotency

Hi, Sounds like fairly standard practice and makes sense to me in the first read. Thanks, Szehon On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 10:09 AM Russell Spitzer wrote: > I think based on the feedback on the proposal and in recent syncs we > should probably move forward with the actual Spec Change PR so we ca

Re: [VOTE] Spec: bring back added-rows in the snapshot fields

+1 (binding) On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:32 PM Russell Spitzer wrote: > +1 (bind) > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 1:25 PM Steve wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 3:08 AM Péter Váry >> wrote: >> > >> > +1 binding >> > >> > Prashant Singh ezt írta (időpont: 2025. >> szept. 1

Re: [VOTE] Spec: bring back added-rows in the snapshot fields

+1 (bind) On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 1:25 PM Steve wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 3:08 AM Péter Váry > wrote: > > > > +1 binding > > > > Prashant Singh ezt írta (időpont: 2025. > szept. 15., H, 11:59): > >> > >> +1 (non-binding) > >> > >> Best, > >> Prashant > >> > >> On Mo

Re: [DISCUSS] Iceberg REST Catalog Idempotency

I think based on the feedback on the proposal and in recent syncs we should probably move forward with the actual Spec Change PR so we can see what this looks like and move on to a discussion of how the Catalog test framework should test this. On 2025/08/22 18:26:23 huaxin gao wrote: > Hi all,

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal: Returning Commit Results from commit()

Hi Endi, Could you elaborate on your use case? Once a commit succeeds, the client already holds the latest snapshot as it's a part of the request, so what’s the need for an additional call? For any subsequent commits, the client would have to reload the table regardless. Yufei On Mon, Sep 15, 202

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.10.0 RC5

+1 (binding) Ran following check and tests: 1. Verified checksum 2. Verified signature 3. Ran dev/check-license 4. Ran `gradlew build` All passed. On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 10:36 PM Steven Wu wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Verified signature, checksum, license > > > Ran build successfully (except for

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Iceberg C++ 0.1.0

Congrats! Thank you for working on this! On Tue, Sep 16, 2025, at 01:27, Yufei Gu wrote: > Congrats on the first release! Thanks everyone for working on it! > > Yufei > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:46 AM Gang Wu wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> >> I'm pleased to announce the first ever release

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Iceberg C++ 0.1.0

Congrats on the first release! Thanks everyone for working on it! Yufei On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:46 AM Gang Wu wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm pleased to announce the first ever release of Apache Iceberg C++ 0.1.0! > > Apache Iceberg is an open table format for huge analytic datasets. Icebe

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal: Returning Commit Results from commit()

Hi > it's a rather heavy change and should probably be backed by some > concrete use cases where the client needs the exact metadata object > produced by the operation. Apologies for chiming in late, but I wanted to share an example from our side. We ingest our data pipelines incrementally usin

Re: [DISCUSS] FileFormat API proposal

Thanks for the feedback @Russell and @Renjie! Updated the PR accordingly. Also removed the possibility to set the row schema for the position delete writer. We will not need that after the PDWR deprecation. You can see one possible implementation in https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12298 -

Re: [VOTE] Spec: bring back added-rows in the snapshot fields

+1 (non-binding) Gang Wu schrieb am Mo. 15. Sept. 2025 um 08:27: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 3:26 PM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Thanks Steven for picking this up! >> >> Kind regards, >> Fokko >> >> Op ma 15 sep 2025 om 06:37 schreef Steven Wu : >> > Hi, >

Re: [DISCUSS] FileFormat API proposal

I would also vote for option 0. This api has clean separation and makes refactoring easier, e.g. when we completely deprecate v2 table, we could mark the *positionDeleteWriteBuilder *method as deprecated, and it would be easier to remove its usage. On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 11:24 PM Russell Spitzer

[ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Iceberg C++ 0.1.0

Hello everyone, I'm pleased to announce the first ever release of Apache Iceberg C++ 0.1.0! Apache Iceberg is an open table format for huge analytic datasets. Iceberg delivers high query performance for tables with tens of petabytes of data, along with atomic commits, concurrent writes, and SQL-c

Re: [VOTE] Spec: bring back added-rows in the snapshot fields

+1 (non-binding) On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 3:26 PM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks Steven for picking this up! > > Kind regards, > Fokko > > Op ma 15 sep 2025 om 06:37 schreef Steven Wu : > >> Hi, >> >> I like to raise a vote on a small spec fix that brings back added-rows in >>