+1 (binding) Minor comments on the Spec PR. I'm assuming everyone is voting specifically on the spec changes, but just want to clarify (implementation PR will go through normal review process).
-Dan On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 9:38 AM Steve <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 12:57 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > Le jeu. 29 janv. 2026 à 08:19, Bharath Krishna <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> > >> +1, that was a missing piece for view authorization! > >> > >> On 2026/01/29 07:03:31 roryqi wrote: > >> > +1, excited to see this. I am working on related work about Apache > Gravitino. > >> > > >> > Christian Thiel <[email protected]> 于2026年1月29日周四 14:50写道： > >> > > > >> > > +1 (non-binding) > >> > > > >> > > Gábor Kaszab <[email protected]> schrieb am Do. 29. Jan. 2026 > um 07:22: > >> > >> > >> > >> +1 (nb) > >> > >> > >> > >> Gábor > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2026, 00:02 Adnan Hemani via dev, < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> +1 (non-binding) > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 10:17 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> +1 > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 8:02 AM Russell Spitzer < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> +1 > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 10:01 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> +1 > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 6:29 PM Prashant Singh < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> Hello everyone ! > >> > >>>>>>> The namespace separator for nested namespaces discussion is > converged (thanks a ton Eduard) > >> > >>>>>>> I additionally also added wording for the nested views per > the feedback. > >> > >>>>>>> The spec proposal [1] is ready for review again, I have also > updated the reference implementation too from client side [2] per spec. > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> Please do have a pass and vote based on how you all feel, > when you get some time. Appreciate all the feedback so far ! > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13810 > >> > >>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13979 > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> Best, > >> > >>>>>>> Prashant Singh > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 10:04 AM Prashant Singh < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback, Ryan. I agree that we should leave > the vote open longer and get the wording right. I'll work on addressing the > new feedbacks. > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> Best, > >> > >>>>>>>> Prashant Singh > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 8:59 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> I think this is a good addition, but I think it may need a > bit of work to get the wording right and there's still ongoing discussion. > Maybe we should leave this vote open longer until the discussion settles? > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Also, I want to point out that this is another use of a > specific separator char. I think it would be good to revisit our separator > discussion and finally close on it. > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:33 AM John Zhuge < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 6:23 PM Yufei Gu < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 on the spec change. It’s a solid first step toward > enabling DEFINER views. As usual, the spec change is intentionally kept > separate from access control. > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yufei > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 8:18 AM huaxin gao < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 6:38 PM Prashant Singh < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All, > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose adding an optional referenced-by to the REST > loadTable call, which will contain the fully qualified name of the view > (namespace of the view name and the view name) in case the table is being > referenced by a view. > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This will be really helpful in a couple of ways : > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. First step towards enabling DEFINER views > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Audit, incase one wants to track what's the base > objects accessed from the direct object accessed (example: doc) > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For details please check: > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Spec change PR: > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13810 > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Reference Implementation PR: > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13979 > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Discuss Thread: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/01gb9rygdd1gqks7lnl1o6440qocnh9m > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours: > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Add these changes to the spec > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Prashant Singh > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >> > >>>>>>>>>> John Zhuge > >> > >
