Thanks for the clarification, that make sense to me. Best, Kurt
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:56 PM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Kurt, > > I agree with Aljoscha. We don't need to introduce a big process or do > voting but we should ensure that all stakeholders are notified and have > a chance to raise doubts. > > Regards, > Timo > > > On 07.02.20 09:51, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > I would say a ML discussion or even a Jira issue is enough because > > > > a) the methods are already deprecated > > b) the methods are @PublicEvolving, which I don't consider a super > > strong guarantee to users (we still shouldn't remove them lightly, but > > we can if we have to...) > > > > Best, > > Aljoscha > > > > On 07.02.20 04:40, Kurt Young wrote: > >> Hi dev, > >> > >> Currently I want to remove some already deprecated methods from > >> TableEnvironment which annotated with @PublicEnvolving. And I also > >> created > >> a discussion thread [1] to both dev and user mailing lists to gather > >> feedback on that. But I didn't find any matching rule in Flink bylaw > >> [2] to > >> follow. Since this is definitely a API breaking change, but we already > >> voted for that back in the FLIP which deprecated these methods. > >> > >> I'm not sure about how to proceed for now. Looks like I have 2 choices: > >> > >> 1. If no one raise any objections in discuss thread in like 72 hours, I > >> will create a jira to start working on it. > >> 2. Since this is a API breaking change, I need to open another FLIP to > >> tell > >> that I want to remove these deprecated methods. This seems a little > >> redundant with the first FLIP which deprecate the methods. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Best, > >> Kurt > >> > >> [1] > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r98af66feb531ce9e6b94914e44391609cad857e16ea84db5357c1980%40%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E > >> > >> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Bylaws > >> > >
