nowke commented on PR #487: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator/pull/487#issuecomment-1368142154
> I am still a bit torn on this PR. This adds quite a lot of complexity to the validation with some risks involved. Maybe we should just leave it as it is? Agreed on the added complexity, given the scope of the issue. Only additional benefit we get out of `processSpecFromConfig` from TM/JM utils is validating different combinations of `flinkConfiguration`, example: [https://github.com/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator/pull/487#discussion_r1059562798](https://github.com/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator/pull/487#discussion_r1059562798). I am totally fine closing the PR unless you have any alternative approach in mind. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@flink.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
