[GitHub] [flink] zentol edited a comment on pull request #14749: [FLINK-21123][fs] Bump beanutils to 1.9.4
zentol edited a comment on pull request #14749: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/14749#issuecomment-766851391 The test failure is unlikely to be related (I can't see how that could affect things); I'll re-run the e2e tests to be sure. The core assumption I have is that the `flink-fs-swift-hadoop` filesystem currently works, by virtue of being excluded from bigger changes that the other filesystems underwent (like the hadoop3 migration) and not having been touched since it was merged, outside of some smaller security fixes. I'd argue that we should just drop `flink-fs-swift-hadoop` if we don't intend to actively maintain it. 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. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [flink] zentol edited a comment on pull request #14749: [FLINK-21123][fs] Bump beanutils to 1.9.4
zentol edited a comment on pull request #14749: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/14749#issuecomment-766851391 The test failure is unlikely to be related (I can't see how that could affect things); I'll re-run the e2e tests to be sure. The core assumption I have is that the `flink-fs-swift-hadoop` filesystem currently works, by virtue of being excluded from bigger changes that the other filesystems underwent (like the hadoop3 migration) and not having been touched since it was merged, outside of some smaller security fixes. I'd argue that we should just drop `flink-fs-swift-hadoop` if we don't intend to actively maintain it. 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. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
