I agree with Russell that the spec should remain language-agnostic. However, for the Java client (and other integrations implemented in Java), +1 for moving them to a new repository. Alternatively, we could rename the current repository and relocate the spec to a new repository under the existing name. The ideal time for this work could be during the development of Iceberg v2.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 8:52 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > OK, thanks guys for your feedback. > > It was a more "open question" to give more "consistency" (like other > projects did, Arrow, Parquet, etc). But definitely not strongly > required :) > > Let's skip this one for now. > > Regards > JB > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 7:29 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I'm not in favor of the rename at this point. > > > > This just seems unnecessary and since the java implementation is the > reference implementation I don't think there's real confusion caused by > leaving the repo as it is. > > > > I know this has been done in other projects like `parquet-mr` -> > `parquet-java`, but that was more due to the `mr` designation being > confusing and obsolete. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 8:58 AM Russell Spitzer < > russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I generally dislike renames unless we are going to get some tangible > benefit out of it. Consistency > >> is never something I really care that much about in repository names > since no one is really using > >> those on a daily basis and they aren't really used programmatically. > >> > >> If we did do this rename would we be breaking all old hyper links to > the repo? If so, I think I'd say I'm a -1. I also > >> find it more confusing in projects where this has happened and the > repository is retained for old > >> links but the README just says, go to XXXX instead. > >> > >> All that said, I think iceberg-java is the right name of the java impl > and the spec should probably be split > >> into another repo. But that's what I would have done with perfect > foresight before we got to the current state. > >> > >> So depending on the impact to existing links and references I'm between > a -1 and +0. > >> > >> Things that would convince me to be a +1 > >> > >> Frequency of how often the single repository is confusing to folks, and > does this affect them on a daily basis? > >> Would we be able to route all requests to the old repository > automatically to the new one? > >> Would impacts on current developers be minimal? How many dev setups > need to be changed for this to work? > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi folks, > >>> > >>> I know it's not an easy one, but I would like to start this discussion > :) > >>> > >>> We now have several repositories: > >>> - iceberg-cpp > >>> - iceberg-go > >>> - iceberg-python > >>> - iceberg-rust > >>> > >>> To be consistent, what about renaming iceberg to iceberg-java ? > >>> > >>> I know it's not only Java (it's also specs and site), but it would be > >>> clearer, especially for contributors and the community. > >>> > >>> Thoughts ? > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB >
