Update here is that both vote threads have passed unanimously; I think we
are clear to move forward with the integrations.

Thank you everyone for your help in this process

Andrew

On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 2:59 PM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote:

> Here's the vote thread on the iceberg dev list:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/ytb9x7x8ff3b7031kcrc05nzjtmh091s
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 11:21 AM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have started a vote on the datafusion dev list to accept the code:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/6k5lws31c61y1lx2s34pxo4lmc7334lr
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 12:45 PM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Kevin -- that would be great.
> > >
> > > If you start the iceberg vote thread, then someone else can start a
> vote
> > > thread for DataFusion to accept it.
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 12:02 PM Kevin Liu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks Andrew. And thank you Gabriel for porting over the code, I've
> > +1'ed
> > >> the PR (https://github.com/apache/datafusion-iceberg/pull/1)
> > >>
> > >> Happy to help start a vote on the iceberg side.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Kevin Liu
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 4:36 AM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The new repository is available:
> > >> > https://github.com/apache/datafusion-iceberg
> > >> >
> > >> > Gabriel, can you take a look at making a proposed PR with the
> content
> > to
> > >> > move?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 7:07 AM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> I have filed a INFR request to create the new repository:
> > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-28379
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 8:02 PM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]
> >
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > I will plan to run both voting threads -- I think first we need a
> > >> repo
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > a PR to vote on. We will work on that starting tomorrow
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 7:52 PM Neelesh Salian <
> > >> [email protected]
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > Sounds good to me. Feel free to start both threads. Glad to see
> > >> this
> > >> >> > going
> > >> >> > > forward.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 16:46 Andrew Lamb <
> [email protected]
> > >
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > I think we should do a formal vote in a separate thread --
> for
> > >> both
> > >> >> > > > communities
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 7:11 PM Neelesh Salian <
> > >> >> > [email protected]>
> > >> >> > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> Yes, to the new repo apache/datafusion-iceberg
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> Question to the folks here: Do we need a formal community
> vote
> > >> >> across
> > >> >> > > >> communities or this thread suffices?
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 03:37 Andrew Lamb <
> > [email protected]>
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > Thank for all the feedback so far -- unless anyone has
> > >> concerns,
> > >> >> I
> > >> >> > > will
> > >> >> > > >> > file a request a new repository for
> > apache/datafusion-iceberg
> > >> >> > tomorrow
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > Andrew
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 5:49 AM Renjie Liu <
> > >> >> [email protected]>
> > >> >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > +1 for Andrew's proposal.
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2026 at 1:56 AM Kevin Liu <
> > >> >> [email protected]>
> > >> >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > + dev@iceberg
> > >> >> > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > (lesson learned, emailing 2 devlist might not be the
> > best
> > >> >> idea
> > >> >> > > >> > > logistically
> > >> >> > > >> > > > haha)
> > >> >> > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 10:48 AM Kevin Liu <
> > >> >> > [email protected]>
> > >> >> > > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > > Thanks for all the great discussions so far. I'm
> glad
> > we
> > >> >> > found a
> > >> >> > > >> > > solution
> > >> >> > > >> > > > > that benefits the broader ecosystem.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > > I'm +1 to moving to an apache-governed location,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > > apache/datafusion-iceberg seems like a great place.
> I
> > >> like
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > process
> > >> >> > > >> > > > > Andrew proposed, happy to help with the logistics.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > > Best,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > > Kevin Liu
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > > PS I have also removed the iceberg python binding
> that
> > >> >> exports
> > >> >> > > >> > > > > DataFusion's TableProvider, so that's 1 less thing
> we
> > >> have
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > >> worry
> > >> >> > > >> > > > about.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >  https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/3036
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 6:28 AM Gabriel Musat <
> > >> >> > > >> [email protected]>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> Sounds like a good direction, +1 (non binding)
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> I can help porting the commit history of the
> > >> >> > DataFusion-Iceberg
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> integration to the new repo if PMCs agree.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> On 2026/09/04 12:27:30 Andrew Lamb wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > I think this is a great idea as well -- thank you
> > for
> > >> >> > > bringing
> > >> >> > > >> it
> > >> >> > > >> > up
> > >> >> > > >> > > > and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > for the great discussions so far.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > While at VLDB this past week, I spoke to at least
> > >> three
> > >> >> > > people
> > >> >> > > >> > from
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > companies adding Apache Iceberg support to their
> > >> >> products.
> > >> >> > > All
> > >> >> > > >> of
> > >> >> > > >> > > them
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> had
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > to fork iceberg-rust for one reason or another.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > I think we have a huge need to improve our
> ability
> > to
> > >> >> work
> > >> >> > > >> > together
> > >> >> > > >> > > > and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > accelerate everyone's efforts. Giving the
> > DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> integration
> > >> >> > > >> > > > access
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > more expert maintainers with bandwidth I think
> will
> > >> help
> > >> >> > > >> everyone.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > There seems to be consensus that we should move
> the
> > >> >> > > integration
> > >> >> > > >> > code
> > >> >> > > >> > > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > DataFusion governance, and that it should remain
> in
> > >> the
> > >> >> > ASF,
> > >> >> > > >> > though
> > >> >> > > >> > > > some
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > open technical questions remain.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > If that is the case, I propose the following
> > specific
> > >> >> > > process:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > 1. Create the new gitub repository in Apache for
> > the
> > >> >> code
> > >> >> > > (e.g.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > apache/datafusion-iceberg)
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > 2. Create a PR in the new repo with the proposed
> > code
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > 3. Hold a formal vote on the iceberg dev list to
> > move
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > > integration
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> code
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > to DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > 4. Hold a formal vote on the DataFusion dev list
> to
> > >> >> accept
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > >> new
> > >> >> > > >> > > > code
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > I am happy to help with the logistics (e.g. ASF
> > INFRA
> > >> >> > ticket
> > >> >> > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > create
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > new repo, votes, etc) but I am not expert enough
> to
> > >> >> create
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > proposed
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> PR.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > Please let me know your thoughts,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > Andrew
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > (PMC Chair of DataFusion)
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 9:48 PM Renjie Liu <
> > >> >> > > >> > [email protected]>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > To add more background about the relationship
> > >> between
> > >> >> > comet
> > >> >> > > >> and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> datafusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > for those who are not familiar with them.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > Apache datafusion is a popular extensible
> compute
> > >> >> engine
> > >> >> > > >> written
> > >> >> > > >> > > in
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> rust.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > Apache comet is an apache spark accelerator
> > >> builton on
> > >> >> > > apache
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> datafusion,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > and also a subproject of apache datafusion.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > datafusion-iceberg is an apache datafusion
> > >> extension
> > >> >> > built
> > >> >> > > on
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> iceberg-rust,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > and comet's iceberg support is built on it.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 9:39 PM Andy Grove <
> > >> >> > > >> > [email protected]>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > +1 for moving to DataFusion PMC. The
> > >> >> iceberg-datafusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > integration
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> is
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > very important for Comet.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 11:42 PM Xuanwo <
> > >> >> > > [email protected]
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > TBH, I also support moving to the
> DataFusion
> > >> PMC.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > - DataFusion is the largest dependency in
> > >> >> > > >> > iceberg-datafusion.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > - The largest downstream user of
> > >> >> iceberg-datafusion
> > >> >> > is
> > >> >> > > >> > Comet,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> which
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > shares many of the same PMC members as
> > >> DataFusion.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > It feels natural to be part of the
> DataFusion
> > >> >> PMC. As
> > >> >> > > >> long
> > >> >> > > >> > as
> > >> >> > > >> > > DF
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> PMC is
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > willing to accept this project, it LGTM.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026, at 12:03, Renjie Liu
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > I don't think the testing should be a
> blocker
> > >> of
> > >> >> > moving
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > iceberg-datafusion out of iceberg-rust repo.
> > From
> > >> >> what
> > >> >> > I
> > >> >> > > >> > learn,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> most of
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > sqllogictests are in pr of modifying
> > >> >> iceberg-datafusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > integration,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > there
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > are only few cases where we rely on
> > >> sqllogictests to
> > >> >> > > verify
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> features.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > How would that sound for the
> `iceberg-rust`
> > >> >> > community
> > >> >> > > >> to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > grant a
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > couple of Apache DataFusion PMCs committer
> > >> access to
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > repository,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > limited to the `iceberg-datafusion` crate
> via a
> > >> >> > > CODEOWNERS
> > >> >> > > >> > file,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > so
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> that
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > they can help push reviews and PRs forward
> > >> >> > independently?
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > I'm not sure if this is feasible, but
> moving
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> iceberg-datafusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > crate to apache datafusion project sounds a
> > more
> > >> >> > > reasonable
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> approach to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > me.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > It's still governed by Apache, and most of
> the
> > >> code
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> > > >> related
> > >> >> > > >> > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > DataFusion, so I think the DataFusion
> community
> > >> is
> > >> >> in a
> > >> >> > > >> better
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> position
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > define the vision and design for it.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 10:45 PM Gabriel
> > Musat
> > >> <
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> [email protected]>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > Based on these two facts:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > - There's a current reviewer bandwidth
> > problem
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> > > hurts
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> development
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > velocity of the `iceberg-datafusion` crate
> > >> currently
> > >> >> > > hosted
> > >> >> > > >> > > under
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > `apache/iceberg-rust`.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > - There is value in maintaining the
> > >> >> > > `iceberg-datafusion`
> > >> >> > > >> > crate
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> inside
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > `apache/iceberg-rust` for testing, design and
> > >> >> > governance.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > How would that sound for the `iceberg-rust`
> > >> >> community
> > >> >> > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > grant a
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> couple
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > of Apache DataFusion PMCs committer access to
> > the
> > >> >> > > >> repository,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> limited to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > the `iceberg-datafusion` crate via a
> CODEOWNERS
> > >> >> file,
> > >> >> > so
> > >> >> > > >> that
> > >> >> > > >> > > they
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> can
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > help
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > push reviews and PRs forward independently?
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > Based on review history, I'd propose Matt
> > >> >> Butrovich
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > > >> Tim
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> Saucer as
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > two good candidates, but this would be
> > completely
> > >> >> up to
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > `iceberg-rust`
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > community.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > On 2026/08/26 17:56:19 Shawn Chang wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Hi all,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Summarizing the discussion so far,
> > including
> > >> a
> > >> >> few
> > >> >> > > >> points
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> raised in
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > today’s
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > community sync.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > There seems to be general agreement that
> > the
> > >> >> > current
> > >> >> > > >> > > > DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > integration
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > has a velocity/reviewer bandwidth
> problem,
> > >> and
> > >> >> > moving
> > >> >> > > >> it
> > >> >> > > >> > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > a
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > separate
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > repository could help DataFusion
> > contributors
> > >> >> > iterate
> > >> >> > > >> more
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > independently.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > At the same time, several open questions
> > >> remain:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    -
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    Whether repo separation is the right
> > >> >> solution,
> > >> >> > > >> versus
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> expanding
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    DataFusion reviewer/committer
> > >> participation
> > >> >> in
> > >> >> > > >> > > > iceberg-rust.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    -
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    Where the boundary should be between
> > >> engine
> > >> >> > > specific
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> integration
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    Iceberg core functionality, and how to
> > >> avoid
> > >> >> > > >> duplicated
> > >> >> > > >> > > or
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> forked
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Iceberg
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    implementations. (how to avoid the
> case
> > >> where
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> Iceberg-datafusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > moving
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    much faster than the core and
> eventually
> > >> >> need a
> > >> >> > > >> forked
> > >> >> > > >> > > core
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> API
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    implementation)
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    -
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    How compatibility and end-to-end
> > >> correctness
> > >> >> > > testing
> > >> >> > > >> > > should
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> work
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > across
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    repositories, since iceberg-rust still
> > >> >> relies on
> > >> >> > > >> > > DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> for
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > integration
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    testing.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    -
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    Where the integration should live and
> > how
> > >> to
> > >> >> > keep
> > >> >> > > it
> > >> >> > > >> > > under
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> Apache
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    governance while making it easy for
> both
> > >> >> Iceberg
> > >> >> > > and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >    contributors to maintain.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > So I think the main question is not only
> > >> >> whether to
> > >> >> > > >> move
> > >> >> > > >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> code,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > but
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > how
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > to improve development velocity without
> > >> losing
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > >> close
> > >> >> > > >> > > > design,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > testing,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > and governance relationship between the
> > >> engine
> > >> >> > > >> integration
> > >> >> > > >> > > and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > iceberg-rust
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > core.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Best,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Shawn
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 4:14 AM Manu
> Zhang
> > <
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> [email protected]>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > +1 moving the DataFusion integration
> and
> > >> tests
> > >> >> > > into a
> > >> >> > > >> > > > separate
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > apache-governed repository. Can we
> bring
> > >> this
> > >> >> > > >> discussion
> > >> >> > > >> > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Community
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Sync[1] this week?
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > 1.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YuGhUdukLP5gGiqCbk0A5_Wifqe2CZWgOd3TbhY3UQg/edit?tab=t.0
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 3:37 PM Renjie
> > Liu
> > >> <
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > [email protected]>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi, Matt:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks for raising this.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> 1) Apache governance:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> I would +1 for putting this in an
> apache
> > >> >> repo,
> > >> >> > for
> > >> >> > > >> > > example
> > >> >> > > >> > > > a
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> sub
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > repo of
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> datafusion project. Shawn has stated
> > most
> > >> of
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > reasons,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > so
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> I
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > don't want
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> to repeat it again.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> 2) Where do tests live/how tests
> should
> > be
> > >> >> > > >> maintained?
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> Initially I was thinking about putting
> > >> >> > > sqllogictest
> > >> >> > > >> in
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > iceberg-rust, but
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> after second thought I'm leaning
> towards
> > >> to
> > >> >> put
> > >> >> > it
> > >> >> > > >> in
> > >> >> > > >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> new repo
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > for two
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> reasons:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> 1. It would be easier for developer of
> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > datafusion-iceberg
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > integration
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> to add tests
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> 2. It would make the dependency graph
> > and
> > >> >> > version
> > >> >> > > >> > release
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> easier.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Though
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> the dependency is on crate level
> rather
> > >> than
> > >> >> > repo
> > >> >> > > >> > level,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > bi-direction
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> dependency may make version management
> > >> weird
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > >> > > difficult.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> The downside of this approach is that
> > >> it's a
> > >> >> > > little
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> unfriendly for
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> iceberg-rust developers, but I think
> > it's
> > >> >> less
> > >> >> > > >> frequent
> > >> >> > > >> > > for
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > iceberg-rust
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> developers to add sqllogictests
> compared
> > >> with
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> datafusion-iceberg
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > developers.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> 3) Dropping DataFusion dependencies
> from
> > >> >> > > >> pyiceberg-core
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> binding
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> I'm not quite familiar with this part,
> > >> but it
> > >> >> > > sounds
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> reasonable to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > me.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 6:50 AM Shawn
> > >> Chang <
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > [email protected]
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Hi Matt,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Thanks for raising this! I generally
> > >> agree
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> > > we
> > >> >> > > >> can
> > >> >> > > >> > > > move
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> datafusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> integration to a separate repo if
> that
> > >> helps
> > >> >> > more
> > >> >> > > >> > > > DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > experts to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> work on the integrations
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> On the three considerations:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> 1) Apache governance:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> I think this is my biggest concern so
> > >> far.
> > >> >> This
> > >> >> > > >> could
> > >> >> > > >> > > not
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> only
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > affect
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> contributors, but also whether the
> > >> >> downstream
> > >> >> > > users
> > >> >> > > >> > > could
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > continue
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > to use
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> the integration.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Even if the code remains
> > Apache-licensed,
> > >> >> > > >> governance,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> release of
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> artifacts,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> and contribution policies can matter
> > for
> > >> >> > > adoption.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> We should explore more about the
> option
> > >> to
> > >> >> keep
> > >> >> > > it
> > >> >> > > >> > under
> > >> >> > > >> > > > an
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Apache-governed
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> repository.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> 2) Where do tests live/how tests
> should
> > >> be
> > >> >> > > >> maintained?
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> I think this is closely related to
> the
> > >> >> > governance
> > >> >> > > >> > > > question.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> To
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > me,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> broader question is: *how do we make
> it
> > >> easy
> > >> >> > for
> > >> >> > > >> > people
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> from both
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Iceberg Rust and DataFusion
> communities
> > >> to
> > >> >> > > maintain
> > >> >> > > >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > integration?*
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> If we move it to a non-Apache
> > >> repository, I
> > >> >> > worry
> > >> >> > > >> that
> > >> >> > > >> > > it
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> could
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> eventually
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> look somewhat like the current
> Iceberg
> > >> Java
> > >> >> <>
> > >> >> > > >> Trino
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> integration:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> integration primarily lives on the
> > Trino
> > >> >> side
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > > >> is
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> therefore
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > mostly
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> maintained by people who are already
> > >> deeply
> > >> >> > > >> involved
> > >> >> > > >> > in
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> Trino.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> There is an important difference
> here,
> > >> >> though.
> > >> >> > > For
> > >> >> > > >> > > Iceberg
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> Java,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Spark is
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> arguably the primary engine
> integration
> > >> and
> > >> >> > has a
> > >> >> > > >> > large
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> Iceberg
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> contributor
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> base around it, so having the Trino
> > >> >> integration
> > >> >> > > >> > > maintained
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> more
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> independently is relatively natural.
> In
> > >> >> Iceberg
> > >> >> > > >> Rust
> > >> >> > > >> > > > today,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> has
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> a much more central role. It is by
> far
> > >> the
> > >> >> most
> > >> >> > > >> mature
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> engine
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > integration
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> in the project, is used by our
> > >> SQLLogicTest
> > >> >> > > >> > > > infrastructure,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > many
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> users
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> building on Iceberg Rust are also
> > >> building
> > >> >> on
> > >> >> > > >> > > DataFusion.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> The
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > overlap
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> between the two communities is
> > therefore
> > >> >> much
> > >> >> > > >> larger.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Because of that, I would prefer that
> > >> >> extracting
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> integration
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > does not
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> turn it into something that is
> > >> effectively
> > >> >> > owned
> > >> >> > > >> only
> > >> >> > > >> > by
> > >> >> > > >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> side. Ideally, both Iceberg Rust
> > >> >> contributors
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > contributors
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> should be able to review changes,
> > >> maintain
> > >> >> > > >> > > compatibility,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > evolve the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> integration together.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> 3) Dropping DataFusion dependencies
> > from
> > >> >> > > >> > pyiceberg-core
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> binding:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > I
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > think
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> it
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> makes sense to make things simpler
> and
> > >> have
> > >> >> > left
> > >> >> > > a
> > >> >> > > >> > > comment
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> on the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > github
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> issue with more detailed thoughts:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/3036
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Best,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Shawn
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 11:23 AM Matt
> > >> >> > Butrovich <
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > [email protected]>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > Hello all,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > I've never tried emailing two
> > different
> > >> >> > project
> > >> >> > > >> > lists
> > >> >> > > >> > > at
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> once,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > but it
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> was
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > suggested that I do so to try to
> > track
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > > conversation
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> across
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > both
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > communities. We'll see how this
> > >> threads on
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > mailing
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> lists.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > There has been a GitHub Discussion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/discussions/2992#discussioncomment-18082533
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> ,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > a GitHub Issue
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >
> > >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/3029,
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > it's been a long topic of
> > conversation
> > >> in
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > >> past
> > >> >> > > >> > two
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> weeks in
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > both
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > DataFusion and Iceberg Rust
> Community
> > >> >> Calls
> > >> >> > to
> > >> >> > > >> > discuss
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> moving
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > DataFusion integration from Iceberg
> > >> Rust
> > >> >> to a
> > >> >> > > >> > separate
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > repository. I
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> will
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > try to summarize some of the major
> > >> points
> > >> >> as
> > >> >> > I
> > >> >> > > >> > > > understand
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> them,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > but the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > conversations are the ground truth
> > and
> > >> >> please
> > >> >> > > >> feel
> > >> >> > > >> > > free
> > >> >> > > >> > > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > correct me
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> here.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > The DataFusion TableProvider
> > >> integration
> > >> >> in
> > >> >> > > >> Iceberg
> > >> >> > > >> > > Rust
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> makes
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > a dependency for Iceberg Rust. The
> > >> >> > integration
> > >> >> > > >> > exists
> > >> >> > > >> > > > for
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > multiple
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> reasons:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > 1) an engine to execute Iceberg
> > Rust's
> > >> >> corpus
> > >> >> > > of
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> sqllogictest
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > files
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > 2) a TableProvider integration for
> > >> >> DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> users
> > >> >> > > >> > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> interact
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > with
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > Iceberg tables
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > Some of the motivations to break
> out
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > integration:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > 1) There have been a number of
> issues
> > >> and
> > >> >> > pull
> > >> >> > > >> > > requests
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> against
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > DataFusion TableProvider in Iceberg
> > >> Rust
> > >> >> as
> > >> >> > > users
> > >> >> > > >> > want
> > >> >> > > >> > > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> add
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > more
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > features, and they often go stale.
> I
> > >> don't
> > >> >> > > >> believe
> > >> >> > > >> > > there
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> are
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > many
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > committers/PMC members familiar
> with
> > or
> > >> >> using
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> integration.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > 2) Iceberg Rust would like to stay
> as
> > >> >> > > >> > engine-agnostic
> > >> >> > > >> > > as
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > possible. A
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > recent DataFusion Ballista
> > integration
> > >> was
> > >> >> > > >> declined
> > >> >> > > >> > > for
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> this
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > reason
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/2613
> > >> >> > > >> .
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > 3) Other projects that rely on both
> > >> >> Iceberg
> > >> >> > > Rust
> > >> >> > > >> and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> DataFusion
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > (e.g.,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > Comet) are blocked by Iceberg Rust
> > >> >> upgrading
> > >> >> > > its
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> DataFusion and
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Arrow
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > dependencies before they can
> upgrade.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > Some considerations for both
> > >> communities:
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > 1) Where would this DataFusion
> > >> >> TableProvider
> > >> >> > > >> live?
> > >> >> > > >> > > Most
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > specifically,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > would it be an Apache-governed
> > >> project? As
> > >> >> > > folks
> > >> >> > > >> > like
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > @andygrove
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > point
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> out,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > this can affect whether some
> > community
> > >> >> > members
> > >> >> > > >> could
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> contribute
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > to it.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > There is a datafusion-contrib org
> for
> > >> >> > > >> > > DataFusion-related
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > projects to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> have
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > visibility but no Apache
> governance,
> > >> but
> > >> >> > there
> > >> >> > > >> may
> > >> >> > > >> > be
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> options
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > put it
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > under an Apache repository.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > 2) How would Iceberg Rust continue
> to
> > >> run
> > >> >> > > >> > > sqllogictests
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> for
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > regression
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > testing? Does this live in a
> > different
> > >> >> > > repository
> > >> >> > > >> > that
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> depends
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > on this
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> new
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > Iceberg Rust TableProvider crate?
> > Would
> > >> >> we be
> > >> >> > > >> able
> > >> >> > > >> > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> test Pull
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Requests on
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > Iceberg Rust with sqllogictests?
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > 3) @kevinqliu is familiar with the
> > >> Python
> > >> >> > > >> bindings
> > >> >> > > >> > in
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> Iceberg
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Rust,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> and I
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > believe that DataFusion dependency
> > >> might
> > >> >> be
> > >> >> > > >> removed
> > >> >> > > >> > as
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> well,
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > but
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > that
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> is
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > not the core focus of this
> > >> conversation.
> > >> >> He
> > >> >> > has
> > >> >> > > >> also
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> proposed
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > removing
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> that
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > and using the DataFusion Python
> > >> bindings
> > >> >> > > >> directly.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > I'm sure I'm forgetting things, but
> > >> this
> > >> >> > email
> > >> >> > > is
> > >> >> > > >> > long
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> enough.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > Thanks everyone for the discussion
> > thus
> > >> >> far,
> > >> >> > > and
> > >> >> > > >> > > looking
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > forward
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> more
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > input on this.
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > -Matt
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > Xuanwo
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > https://xuanwo.io/
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> >> > [email protected]
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> >> > > [email protected]
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to