@Leonard I see your concerns regarding the complexity of migration, but we still have one year to address them.
@Xintong I believe it makes sense to keep it in the list and mark it as a stretch goal if you have concerns with the "must have" label. Best, Alexander On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 at 11:25, Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks all for the feedback. > > I've updated the wiki page as discussed, and started another round of VOTE > [1]. > > Best, > > Xintong > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/odftvr5ozyrrl9nl2p3gv4d9fbmt2wvz > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 2:26 PM Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Let me try to summarize the proposed changes on the list. > > > > - "Eager State Declaration" should be nice-to-have > > - "Remove SourceFunction / SinkFunction / SinkV1" should be changed to > > "Remove SinkV1", and remain must-to-have > > - "Remove Queryable State" should be nice-to-have. It will be > > deprecated in 1.18, but the hard removal requires community > discussion and > > vote, which may or may not happen in 2.0. > > - "Refactor the API modules" should be TBD. > > - I also noticed Zhenqiu Huang has already changed "Drop YARN-specific > > mutating GET REST endpoints" from TBD to must-have, which I'd like to > bring > > up here for attention. > > > > I'd leave this discussion open for the next couple of days. If there are > > no objections, I'll update the list and start another round of voting. > > > > In addition, I'd like to cross-post from the other thread [1] that: > > > > I'm not aware of any decision that has already been made by the community > >> regarding after which 1.x minor release will we ship the 2.0 major > release. > > > > > > > >> I also don't think we should push all the deprecation works in 1.18. > >> > > > > > >> Deciding to deprecate / remove an API definitely deserves thorough > >> discussions and FLIP, which takes time, and I don't think we should > >> compromise that for any reason. > > > > > > > >> Assuming at some point we want to ship the 2.0 release, and there are > >> some deprecated APIs that we want to remove but have not fulfilled the > >> migration period required by FLIP-321, I see 3 options to move forward. > > > > 1. Not removing the deprecated APIs in 2.0, carrying them until 3.0. > > > > 2. Postpone the 2.0 release for another minor release. > > > > 3. Considering such APIs as exceptions of FLIP-321. > > > > > > > >> Trying to deprecate things early is still helpful, because it reduces > the > >> number of APIs we need to consider when deciding between the options. > >> However, that must not come at the price of rush decisions. I'd suggest > >> developers to design / discuss / vote the breaking changes at their > pace, > >> and we evaluate the status and choose between the options later (maybe > >> around the time releasing 1.19). > >> > > > > Best, > > > > Xintong > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/m0b1v2htd0l7oqo6ypf8lnjyjo817bmm > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 6:33 PM Yuan Mei <yuanmei.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hey Yun and Xintong, > >> > >> (Had a quick offline discussion with Yun) > >> 1. I agree the current implementation of the queryable state is not a > >> blocker of anything related to disaggregated state management. They are > >> different things. > >> 2. On the other hand, "queryable snapshot" is not a completely > equivalent > >> substitution of "queryable state". > >> 3. But in whatever way, I think the way how "queryable state" is > designed > >> is not the right way to move forward. > >> 4. "Deprecating queryable state" is put as a must-have because this > topic > >> has been raised many times along the way. It seems to reach an agreement > >> every time as mentioned by Xingtong, but no one really takes the action. > >> > >> I am suggesting: > >> > >> 1. Remove "Deprecating queryable state" from the must-have list (since > it > >> does not meet the requirements of "must-have") > >> 2. But I am still hoping we can move things forward, so let's put > >> the @Deprecated annotation on it > >> 3. Removal of the code follows a formal community discussion and vote. > >> > >> Best > >> Yuan > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 3:40 PM Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks for the clarification. > >> > > >> > If the list of "Remove deprecated APIs" means, we must remove the code > >> in > >> > > Flink-2.0 initial release, I would vote -1 for queryable state > before > >> we > >> > > get an alternative. > >> > > >> > > >> > FYI, the removal of queryable state is currently marked as the > >> `must-have` > >> > priority. Of course it's not a final decision and that's exactly why > we > >> > are collecting feedback about the list now. > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > > >> > Xintong > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 3:15 PM Yun Tang <myas...@live.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi Xintong, > >> > > > >> > > If the current implementation of queryable state would not block the > >> > > implementation of disaggregated state-backends. > >> > > I prefer to not removing the implementation until we have a better > >> > > solution (maybe based on the queryable snapshot) cc @Yuan. > >> > > > >> > > If the list of "Remove deprecated APIs" means, we must remove the > >> code in > >> > > Flink-2.0 initial release, I would vote -1 for queryable state > before > >> we > >> > > get an alternative. > >> > > And I will raise the concern in the Flink roadmap discussion. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Best > >> > > Yun Tang > >> > > ________________________________ > >> > > From: Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> > >> > > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 10:07 > >> > > To: dev@flink.apache.org <dev@flink.apache.org> > >> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.0 must-have work items > >> > > > >> > > @Yun, > >> > > I see your point that the ability queryable states trying to provide > >> is > >> > > meaningful but the current implementation of the feature is > >> problematic. > >> > So > >> > > what's your opinion on deprecating the current queryable state? Do > you > >> > > think we need to wait until there is a new implementation of > queryable > >> > > state to remove the current one? Or maybe the current implementation > >> is > >> > not > >> > > well functional anyway and we can treat the removal of it as > >> > > independent from introducing a new one? > >> > > > >> > > However, I don't want to make users feel that this feature cannot be > >> done > >> > > > well, and maybe we can redesign this feature. > >> > > > > >> > > TBH, the impression that I got from the roadmap[1] is that the > >> queryable > >> > > state is retiring and will be replaced by the state processor api. > If > >> > this > >> > > is not the impression we want users to have, you probably also need > to > >> > > raise it in the roadmap discussion [2]. > >> > > > >> > > Best, > >> > > > >> > > Xintong > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > [1] https://flink.apache.org/roadmap > >> > > > >> > > [2] > https://lists.apache.org/thread/szdr4ngrfcmo7zko4917393zbqhgw0v5 > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 9:53 AM Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I'd propose to downgrade "Refactor the API modules" to TBD. The > >> > original > >> > > > proposal was based on the condition that we are allowed to > introduce > >> > > > in-place API breaking changes in release 2.0. As the migration > >> period > >> > is > >> > > > introduced, and we are no longer planning to do in-place changes / > >> > > > removal for DataStream (and same for APIs in `flink-core`), we > need > >> to > >> > > > re-evaluate whether it's feasible to do things like moving classes > >> to > >> > > > different module / packages, turning concrete classes into > >> interfaces > >> > on > >> > > > the API classes. > >> > > > > >> > > > Best, > >> > > > > >> > > > Xintong > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 1:10 AM Yun Tang <myas...@live.com> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> I agree that we could downgrade "Eager state declaration" to a > >> > > >> nice-to-have feature. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> For the depreciation of "queryable state", can we just rename to > >> > > >> deprecate "current implementation of queryable state"? The > feature > >> to > >> > > query > >> > > >> the internal state is actually very useful for debugging and > could > >> > > provide > >> > > >> more possibility to extend FlinkSQL more like a database. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Just as Yuan replied in the previous email [1], current > >> implementation > >> > > of > >> > > >> queryable state has many problems in design. However, I don't > want > >> to > >> > > make > >> > > >> users feel that this feature cannot be done well, and maybe we > can > >> > > redesign > >> > > >> this feature. As far as I know, risingwave already support > >> queryable > >> > > state > >> > > >> with better user experience [2]. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> [1] > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/9hmwcjb3q5c24pk3qshjvybfqk62v17m > >> > > >> [2] https://syntaxbug.com/06a3e7c554/ > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Best > >> > > >> Yun Tang > >> > > >> ________________________________ > >> > > >> From: Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 13:51 > >> > > >> To: dev@flink.apache.org <dev@flink.apache.org> > >> > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.0 must-have work items > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks for the support, Yu. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> We will have the guideline before removing DataSet. We are > >> currently > >> > > >> prioritizing works that need to be done before the 1.18 feature > >> > freeze, > >> > > >> and > >> > > >> will soon get back to working on the guidelines. We expect to get > >> the > >> > > >> guideline ready before or soon after the 1.18 release, which will > >> > > >> definitely be before removing DataSet in 2.0. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Best, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Xintong > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 1:06 PM Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > It's great to see the discussion about what we need to improve > on > >> > > >> > (completely) switching from DataSet API to DataStream API from > >> the > >> > > user > >> > > >> > perspective. I feel that these improvements would happen faster > >> > (only) > >> > > >> when > >> > > >> > we seriously prepare to remove the DataSet APIs with a target > >> > release, > >> > > >> just > >> > > >> > like what we are doing now. And the same applies to the SinkV1 > >> > related > >> > > >> > discussions (smile). > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I support Xintong's opinion on keeping "Remove the DataSet > APIs" > >> a > >> > > >> > must-have item, meantime I support Yuxia's opinion that we > should > >> > > >> > explicitly let our users know how to migrate their existing > >> DataSet > >> > > API > >> > > >> > based applications afterwards, meaning that the guideline > Xintong > >> > > >> mentioned > >> > > >> > is a must-have (rather than best efforts) before removing the > >> > DataSet > >> > > >> APIs. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Best Regards, > >> > > >> > Yu > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 14:00, yuxia < > luoyu...@alumni.sjtu.edu.cn > >> > > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks Xintong for clarification. A guideline to help users > >> > > migrating > >> > > >> > from > >> > > >> > > DataSet to DataStream will definitely be helpful. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Best regards, > >> > > >> > > Yuxia > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > ----- 原始邮件 ----- > >> > > >> > > 发件人: "Xintong Song" <tonysong...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > > 收件人: "dev" <dev@flink.apache.org> > >> > > >> > > 发送时间: 星期三, 2023年 7 月 12日 上午 11:40:12 > >> > > >> > > 主题: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.0 must-have work items > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > @Yuxia, > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > We are aware of the issue that you mentioned. Actually, I > don't > >> > > think > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> > > DataStream API can cover everything in the DataSet API in > >> exactly > >> > > the > >> > > >> > same > >> > > >> > > way, because the fundamental model, concepts and primitives > of > >> the > >> > > two > >> > > >> > sets > >> > > >> > > of APIs are completely different. Many of the DataSet APIs, > >> > > especially > >> > > >> > > those accessing the full data set at once, do not fit in the > >> > > >> DataStream > >> > > >> > > concepts at all. I think what's important is that users can > >> > achieve > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> > > same function, even if they may need to code in a different > >> way. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > We have gone through all the existing DataSet APIs, and > >> > categorized > >> > > >> them > >> > > >> > > into 3 kinds: > >> > > >> > > - APIs that are well supported by DataStream API as is. E.g., > >> map, > >> > > >> reduce > >> > > >> > > on grouped dataset, etc. > >> > > >> > > - APIs that can be achieved by DataStream API as is, but > with a > >> > > price > >> > > >> > > (programming complexity, or computation efficiency). E.g., > >> reduce > >> > on > >> > > >> full > >> > > >> > > dataset, sort partition, etc. Admittedly, there is room for > >> > > >> improvement > >> > > >> > on > >> > > >> > > these. We may keep improving these for the DataStream API, or > >> we > >> > can > >> > > >> > > concentrate on supporting them better in the new > >> ProcessFunction > >> > > API. > >> > > >> > > Either way, I don't think we should block the retiring of > >> DataSet > >> > > API > >> > > >> on > >> > > >> > > them. > >> > > >> > > - There are also a few APIs that cannot be supported by the > >> > > DataStream > >> > > >> > API > >> > > >> > > as is, unless users write their custom operators from the > >> ground > >> > up. > >> > > >> Only > >> > > >> > > left/rightOuterJoin and combineGroup fall into this > category. I > >> > > think > >> > > >> > > combinedGroup is probably not a problem, because this is more > >> > like a > >> > > >> > > variant of reduceGroup that allows the framework to execute > >> more > >> > > >> > > efficiently. As for the outer joins, depending on how badly > >> this > >> > is > >> > > >> > needed, > >> > > >> > > it can be supported by emitting the non-joined entries upon > >> > > >> triggering a > >> > > >> > > window join. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > We are also planning to draft a guideline to help users > >> migrating > >> > > from > >> > > >> > > DataSet to DataStream, which should demonstrate how users can > >> > > achieve > >> > > >> > > things like sort-partition with DataStream API. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Last but not least, I'd like to point out that the decision > to > >> > > >> deprecate > >> > > >> > > and eventually remove the DataSet API was approved in > FLIP-131, > >> > and > >> > > >> all > >> > > >> > the > >> > > >> > > prerequisites mentioned in the FLIP have been completed. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Best, > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Xintong > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > [1] > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=158866741 > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:20 AM Jingsong Li < > >> > > jingsongl...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > +1 to Leonard and Galen and Jing. > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > About Source and Sink. > >> > > >> > > > We're still missing quite a bit of work, including > >> > functionality, > >> > > >> > > > including ease of use, including bug fixes, and I'm not > sure > >> > we'll > >> > > >> be > >> > > >> > > > completely done by 2.0. > >> > > >> > > > Until that's done, we won't be in a position to clean up > the > >> old > >> > > >> APIs. > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > Best, > >> > > >> > > > Jingsong > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:41 AM yuxia < > >> > > luoyu...@alumni.sjtu.edu.cn> > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Hi，Xintong. > >> > > >> > > > > Sorry to disturb the voting. I just found an email[1] > about > >> > > >> DataSet > >> > > >> > API > >> > > >> > > > from flink-user-zh channel. And I think it's not just a > >> single > >> > > case > >> > > >> > > > according to my observation. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Remove DataSet is a must have item in release-2.0. But as > >> the > >> > > user > >> > > >> > > email > >> > > >> > > > said, if we remove DataSet, how users can implement > >> > > >> Sort/PartitionBy, > >> > > >> > etc > >> > > >> > > > as they did with DataSet? > >> > > >> > > > > Do we will also provide similar api in datastream or some > >> > other > >> > > >> thing > >> > > >> > > > before we remove DataSet? > >> > > >> > > > > Btw, as far as I see, with regarding to replcaing DataSet > >> with > >> > > >> > > > Datastream, Datastream are missing many API. I think it may > >> well > >> > > >> take > >> > > >> > > much > >> > > >> > > > effort to fully cover the missing api. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > [1] > >> > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/syjmt8f74gh8ok3z4lhgt95zl4dzn168 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Best regards, > >> > > >> > > > > Yuxia > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > ----- 原始邮件 ----- > >> > > >> > > > > 发件人: "Jing Ge" <j...@ververica.com.INVALID> > >> > > >> > > > > 收件人: "dev" <dev@flink.apache.org> > >> > > >> > > > > 发送时间: 星期三, 2023年 7 月 12日 上午 1:23:40 > >> > > >> > > > > 主题: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.0 must-have work items > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > agree with what Leonard said. There are actually more > >> issues > >> > wrt > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> > > new > >> > > >> > > > > Source and SinkV2[1] > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Speaking of must-have vs nice-to-have, I think it depends > >> on > >> > the > >> > > >> > > > priority. > >> > > >> > > > > If removing them has higher priority, we should keep > >> related > >> > > >> tasks as > >> > > >> > > > > must-have and make sure enough effort will be put to > solve > >> > those > >> > > >> > issues > >> > > >> > > > and > >> > > >> > > > > therefore be able to remove those APIs. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Best regards, > >> > > >> > > > > Jing > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > [1] > >> > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/90qc9nrlzf0vbvg92klzp9ftxxc43nbk > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 10:26 AM Leonard Xu < > >> > xbjt...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > Thanks Xintong for driving this great work! But I’ve to > >> give > >> > > my > >> > > >> > > > > > -1(binding) here： > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > -1 to mark "deprecat > SourceFunction/SinkFunction/Sinkv1" > >> > item > >> > > as > >> > > >> > must > >> > > >> > > > to > >> > > >> > > > > > have for release 2.0. > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > I do a lot of connector work in the community, and I > have > >> > two > >> > > >> > > insights > >> > > >> > > > > > from past experience: > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > 1. Many developers reported that it is very difficult > to > >> > > migrate > >> > > >> > from > >> > > >> > > > > > SourceFunction to new Source [1]. The migration of > >> existing > >> > > >> > > conenctors > >> > > >> > > > > > after deprecated SourceFunction is very difficult. Some > >> > > >> developers > >> > > >> > > > (Flavio > >> > > >> > > > > > Pompermaier) reported that they gave up the migration > >> > because > >> > > it > >> > > >> > was > >> > > >> > > > too > >> > > >> > > > > > complicated. I believe it's not a few cases. This means > >> that > >> > > >> > > > deprecating > >> > > >> > > > > > SourceFunction related interfaces require community > >> > > >> contributors to > >> > > >> > > > reduce > >> > > >> > > > > > the migration cost before starting the migration work. > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > 2. IIRC, the function of SinkV2 cannot currently cover > >> > > >> SinkFunction > >> > > >> > > as > >> > > >> > > > > > described in FLIP-287[2], it means the migration path > >> after > >> > > >> > deprecate > >> > > >> > > > > > SinkFunction/Sinkv1 does not exist, thus we cannot mark > >> the > >> > > >> related > >> > > >> > > > > > interfaces of sinkfunction/sinkv1 as deprecated in > 1.18. > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > Based on these two cognitions, I think we should not > mark > >> > > these > >> > > >> > > > interfaces > >> > > >> > > > > > as must to have in 2.0. Maintaining the two sets of > >> > > source/sink > >> > > >> > > > interfaces > >> > > >> > > > > > is not a concern for me, users can choose the interface > >> to > >> > > >> > implement > >> > > >> > > > > > according to their energy and needs. > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > Btw, some work items in 2.0 are marked as must to have, > >> but > >> > no > >> > > >> > > > contributor > >> > > >> > > > > > has claimed them yet. I think this is a risk and hope > the > >> > > >> Release > >> > > >> > > > Managers > >> > > >> > > > > > could pay attention to it. > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > Thank you all RMs for your work, sorry again for > >> > interrupting > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> > > vote > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > Best, > >> > > >> > > > > > Leonard > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > [1] > >> > > >> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/sqq26s9rorynr4vx4nhxz3fmmxpgtdqp > >> > > >> > > > > > [2] > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=240880853 > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:11 PM, Yuan Mei < > >> > > yuanmei.w...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > As a second thought, I think "Eager State > Declaration" > >> is > >> > > >> > probably > >> > > >> > > > not a > >> > > >> > > > > > > must-have. > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > I was originally thinking it is a prerequisite for > >> "state > >> > > >> > querying > >> > > >> > > > for > >> > > >> > > > > > > disaggregated state management". > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Since disaggregated state management itself is not a > >> > > >> must-have, > >> > > >> > > > "Eager > >> > > >> > > > > > > State Declaration" is not as well. We can downgrade > it > >> to > >> > > >> "nice > >> > > >> > to > >> > > >> > > > have" > >> > > >> > > > > > if > >> > > >> > > > > > > no objection. > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Best > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Yuan > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 7:02 PM Jing Ge > >> > > >> > <j...@ververica.com.invalid > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> +1 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 12:52 PM Yu Li < > >> car...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> +1 (binding) > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> Thanks for driving this and great to see us moving > >> > > forward. > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> Best Regards, > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> Yu > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 11:59, Feng Wang < > >> > > >> wangfeng...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>> +1 > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>> Thanks for driving this, looking forward to the > next > >> > > stage > >> > > >> of > >> > > >> > > > flink. > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 5:31 PM Xintong Song < > >> > > >> > > > tonysong...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Hi all, > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> I'd like to start the VOTE for the must-have work > >> > items > >> > > >> for > >> > > >> > > > release > >> > > >> > > > > > >> 2.0 > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> [1]. The corresponding discussion thread is [2]. > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Please note that once the vote is approved, any > >> > changes > >> > > to > >> > > >> > the > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> must-have > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> items (adding / removing must-have items, > changing > >> the > >> > > >> > > priority) > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> requires > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> another vote. Assigning contributors / reviewers, > >> > > updating > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> descriptions / > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> progress, changes to nice-to-have items do not > >> require > >> > > >> > another > >> > > >> > > > vote. > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> The vote will be open until at least July 12, > >> > following > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> > > > consensus > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> voting process. Votes of PMC members are binding. > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Best, > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Xintong > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> [1] > >> > > >> > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/2.0+Release > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> [2] > >> > > >> > > > > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/l3dkdypyrovd3txzodn07lgdwtwvhgk4 > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
