I agree -- I think separating out the legacy planner info should make things clearer for everyone, and then some day we can simply drop it. Plus, doing it now will make it easier to make improvements to the docs going forward.
David On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:38 PM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Seth, > > this is a very good idea. We might not be able to remove the legacy > planner immediately but at least we can make the docs easier for current > and future users of the Blink planner. > > Making the SQL docs Blink-only with a dedicated legacy planner page > sounds good to me. > > Regards, > Timo > On 08.12.20 16:36, Seth Wiesman wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > > > I've been spending a lot of time recently working on the SQL > documentation > > and I'm finding it very difficult to explain semantics as the two table > > planners continue to diverge. As Blink has been the default planner for > > some time, and 1.12 now offers bounded data stream support, how does the > > community feel about making the documentation "blink only"? > > > > We would update the documentation to assume users are always using the > > Blink planner. As the legacy planner still exists we would create a > > dedicated legacy planner page for users that have not migrated for > whatever > > reason - likely dataset interop. On this page, we would clearly list the > > features that are not supported by the legacy planner and any semantics > > that differ from the Blink planner. > > > > Seth > > > >
