The risk should be very limited and it should not affect other parts of the functionality. So I'm also in favour of merging it.
Regards, Dian On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 8:07 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > @Dian Fu <dia...@apache.org> could you assess how involved this > change is? If the change is not very involved and the risk is limited, then > I'd be in favour of merging it because feature parity of APIs is quite > important for our users. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:46 PM Ingo Bürk <i...@ververica.com> wrote: > >> Hello dev, >> >> I was wondering whether we could also consider merging FLINK-23757[1][2] >> after the freeze. This is about exposing two built-in functions which we >> added to Table API & SQL prior to the freeze also for PyFlink. Meaning >> that >> the feature itself isn't new, we only expose it on the Python API, and as >> such it's also entirely isolated from the rest of PyFlink and Flink >> itself. >> As such I'm not sure this is considered a new feature, but I'd rather ask. >> The main motivation for this would be to retain parity on the APIs. >> Thanks! >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-23757 >> [2] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/16874 >> >> >> Best >> Ingo >> >
