Hi, Given that the BATCH execution mode was only released in 1.12 and a rather small impact of the suggested change I'd be ok with backporting it to 1.12.x.
Best, Dawid On 07/01/2021 12:50, Kostas Kloudas wrote: > +1 on my side as it does not break anything and it can act as motivation > for some people to upgrade. > > Cheers, > Kostas > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2021, 12:39 Aljoscha Krettek, <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > >> 1.12.x >> Reply-To: >> >> Hi, >> >> what do you think about backporting FLINK-20491 [1] to Flink 1.12.x? >> >> I (we, including Dawid and Kostas) are a bit torn on this. >> >> a) It's a limitation of Flink 1.12.0 and fixing this seems very good for >> users that would otherwise have to wait until Flink 1.13.0. >> >> b) It's technically a new feature. We allow something with this change >> where previously an `UnsupportedOperationException` would be thrown. >> >> I would lean towards backporting this to 1.12.x. Thoughts? >> >> Best, >> Aljoscha >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-20491 >> >> >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
