+1 to the idea as well, as Iceberg V3 is coming with time with nanos, and
Spark would not be able to read this type without this.
Thanks
Szehon
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:34 PM Wenchen Fan wrote:
> In general, I think it's good for Spark to support the common data types
> in the ecosystem, as it
That said, if I understand correctly, you weren’t intended to “block” the
vote, right? You say you expected the vote to be finished.
Could you please cast the vote to -0.x since some people views this as code
change vote, or clarify explicitly that you think this is not a code change
vote? This wi
Dongjoon,
Please look at what I got from the community.
It is quite different whether "we strongly recommend" vs "we force". We
never have an agreement that the latter would make sense. The DISCUSSION
and VOTE were to gain consensus that the latter does not make sense, and I
think we get consensu
And the criteria of justifying -1 must be whether he answered all 4
questions from me.
https://lists.apache.org/thread/kdtto3poz28q4yrqdqk6839y965sfn5c
Where is the evidence that having a vendor name in the codebase is
> violating ASF policy? Again, I see "Apple" to be used as a vendor name in
>
Thank you all.
The vote is finished in an intended way with the expected result. We have
enough time to discuss and I have been sticking to my original
technical justification from the beginning (including this).
1. Helping renaming the conf via SPARK-51172 (by approving it)
2. Banning `spark.dat
Thanks for the update.
Though I have to clarify that "What all of us agree on is that the previous
code base is okay." is not true.
Wenchen summarized what happened in other thread which I think it's more
proper, like following:
1. A mistake was made, leading to a vendor name being included in t
If we were not intended to block the VOTE but just to express the
disagreement, please say "-1" instead of representing it as "veto". When
saying veto, you intend to kill the process unless you are not persuaded or
you are not having proper technical justification.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 6:27 PM
Sorry, I was missing the type of the vote - this totally depends on the
type of the vote. If we weren't intended to block the VOTE which could have
been interpreted as code change, maybe -0 or -0.5 or -0.99 should have been
used rather than -1 to block the process.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 7:01 PM
