I'm pretty strongly opposed to an iceberg-format repo. We've been through many iterations on docs and site setup and moving the specs doesn't feel like it adds a lot of value.
Keeping the specs with the reference implementation is currently working, except for confusion around releases, but that's always been the case. -Dan On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 10:11 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > Looks great! Thank you. I added some comments to the PR. We should follow > up and add IRC spec too, since that's seen the most changes recently > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 9:31 AM Péter Váry <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Could you please take a look at this PR: >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/18349? >> This is how I imagine it. >> >> Any ideas or feedback? >> >> >> Neelesh Salian <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. okt. >> 2., P, 0:44): >> >>> I kept the Spec changes in for consistency since we hadn't discussed the >>> removal anywhere prior to this thread. >>> Saw them in the notes as early as 1.5.0. >>> >>> I like the idea of the dedicated changelog for the spec alone. >>> We can always clean up as we go along and move things around. >>> >>> Thanks for starting the thread, Peter. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 3:21 PM Hongyue Zhang <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 to separate the binary release and spec change. Also ok >>>> with retrospectively removal for consistency. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 1:23 PM Jones, Danny via dev < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I’d be +1 (non-binding) for creating an iceberg-format repo. Ideally, >>>>> we might also retain the commit history (similar to the iceberg-rust >>>>> DataFusion move recently). I’ve wondered for a while now about appetite >>>>> for >>>>> moving to an iceberg-format repo dedicated to spec changes similar to >>>>> Apache Parquet, thanks for raising this Kurtis. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If not that, then a dedicated changelog in the spec as Kevin suggested >>>>> sounds like a good idea. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Danny >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Reply to: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Date: *Thursday, 1 October 2026 at 20:59 >>>>> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Subject: *RE: [EXTERNAL] [DISCUSS] Spec changes in release notes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do >>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and >>>>> know the content is safe. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1 to removing them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Would there be any appetite for making an Iceberg-Format repo that >>>>> drives the website, holds docs, and where all specification changes are >>>>> merged into? This way the Java implementation can be separated >>>>> structurally >>>>> from the specification changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 1, 2026, at 12:21, Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1, we can retrospectively remove these from >>>>> https://iceberg.apache.org/releases/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And perhaps move them to a changelog in >>>>> https://iceberg.apache.org/spec/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 11:12 AM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 I also had the same thought while reviewing it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Szehon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 12:36 AM Péter Váry < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> During the review of the 1.12.0 release notes, I have realized that we >>>>> include the spec changes in the java binary release notes, like: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Spec >>>>> >>>>> - Introduce SQL UDF specification (#14117) >>>>> >>>>> - Bring back added-rows in snapshot fields (#14048) >>>>> >>>>> - Clarify restrictions for geometry types in V3 (#14250) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think it is very missleading. The spec changes are released >>>>> immediately when the voting happens and the PRs merged or when the >>>>> specific >>>>> spec version is finalized. There is no connection to the binary java >>>>> releases there. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Shall we stop including them in the java release notes? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We can have a different page dedicated to the spec version >>>>> changes/releases. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Peter >>>>> >>>>>
