+1, this is confusing (esp. for new users) and also creates more and more "annotation clutter" as new features are added.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 5:30 PM Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > Yes, please! > > On 08.12.20 16:52, David Anderson wrote: > > 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 > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
