+1 (binding) On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:36 AM Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 10:22 AM Szehon Ho <szehon.apa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Thanks >> Szehon >> >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 10:18 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 8:41 AM Russell Spitzer < >>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (Bind) >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 8:14 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 (non binding) (as said in the PR :)) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks ! >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 3:00 PM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi everyone, >>>>> > >>>>> > A while ago, I sent out a DISCUSS around simplifying the encoding of >>>>> the source-id(s) in the partition-spec and sort-order in the case of a >>>>> multi-argument transform. In short, use source-id in the case of a single >>>>> argument transform, and use source-ids in the case of multi-argument >>>>> transforms. We've had some good discussions on the PR (thanks for jumping >>>>> in, everyone!), and I feel there is consensus. Therefore, I would like to >>>>> raise this vote to verify this across the mailing list. This vote will >>>>> remain open for at least 72 hours. >>>>> > >>>>> > Please consider this my +1 >>>>> > >>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>> > Fokko >>>>> >>>>
