Being a bit late to the party, and don't want to ask to change everything, just maybe some observation.
My main observation and concern is still that this puts pressure and confusion on contributors, which are mostly blocked on committers for reviews, or are taking tickets as multi-week projects. I think it is not a great experience for contributors, when they are already unsure why their work isn't getting the attention from committers that they hoped for, to then see issues unassigned or deprioritized automatically. I think we really need to weigh this discouragement of contributors against the desire for a tidy ticket system. I also think by now this isn't just a matter of phrasing the bot's message correctly. Auto unassignment and deprioritization sends a subtle message that jira resolution is a more important goal than paying attention to contributors (at least I think that is how it will be perceived by many). Back to the original motivation, to not have issues lying around forever, ensuring there is closure eventually. For that, even much longer intervals would be fine. Like pinging every three months, closing after three pings - would resolve most tickets in a year, which is not too bad in the scope of a project like Flink. Many features/wishes easily move to two releases in the future, which is almost a year. We would get rid of long dead tickets and interfere little with current tickets. Contributors can probably understand ticket closing after a year of inactivity. I am curious if a very simple bot that really just looks at stale issues (no comment/change in three months), pings the issue/reporter/assignee/watchers and closes it after three pings would do the job. We would get out of the un-assigning business (which can send very tricky signals) and would rely on reporters/assignees/watchers to unassign if they see that the contributor abandoned the issue. With a cadence of three months for pinging, this isn't much work for the ones that get pinged. Issues where we rely on faster handling are probably the ones where committers have a stake in getting those into an upcoming release, so these tend to be watched anyways. On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:39 PM JING ZHANG <beyond1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Konstantin, Chesnay, > > > I would like it to not unassign people if a PR is open. These are > > usually blocked by the reviewer, not the assignee, and having the > > assignees now additionally having to update JIRA periodically is a bit > > like rubbing salt into the wound. > > I agree with Chesnay about not un-assign an issue if a PR is open. > Besides, Could assignees remove the "stale-assigned" tag by themself? It > seems assignees have no permission to delete the tag if the issue is not > created by themselves. > > Best regards, > JING ZHANG > > Konstantin Knauf <konstan...@ververica.com> 于2021年6月23日周三 下午4:17写道： > > > > I agree there are such tickets, but I don't see how this is addressing > my > > concerns. There are also tickets that just shouldn't be closed as I > > described above. Why do you think that duplicating tickets and losing > > discussions/knowledge is a good solution? > > > > I don't understand why we are necessarily losing discussion/knowledge. > The > > tickets are still there, just in "Closed" state, which are included in > > default Jira search. We could of course just add a label, but closing > seems > > clearer to me given that likely this ticket will not get comitter > attention > > in the foreseeable future. > > > > > I would like to avoid having to constantly fight against the bot. It's > > already responsible for the majority of my daily emails, with quite > little > > benefit for me personally. I initially thought that after some period of > > time it will settle down, but now I'm afraid it won't happen. > > > > Can you elaborate which rules you are running into mostly? I'd rather > like > > to understand how we work right now and where this conflicts with the > Jira > > bot vs slowly disabling the jira bot via labels. > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:00 AM Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Konstantin, > > > > > > > In my opinion it is important that we close tickets eventually. There > > are > > > a > > > > lot of tickets (bugs, improvements, tech debt) that over time became > > > > irrelevant, out-of-scope, irreproducible, etc. In my experience, > these > > > > tickets are usually not closed by anyone but the bot. > > > > > > I agree there are such tickets, but I don't see how this is addressing > my > > > concerns. There are also tickets that just shouldn't be closed as I > > > described above. Why do you think that duplicating tickets and losing > > > discussions/knowledge is a good solution? > > > > > > I would like to avoid having to constantly fight against the bot. It's > > > already responsible for the majority of my daily emails, with quite > > little > > > benefit for me personally. I initially thought that after some period > of > > > time it will settle down, but now I'm afraid it won't happen. Can we > add > > > some label to mark tickets to be ignored by the jira-bot? > > > > > > Best, > > > Piotrek > > > > > > śr., 23 cze 2021 o 09:40 Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > I would like it to not unassign people if a PR is open. These are > > > > usually blocked by the reviewer, not the assignee, and having the > > > > assignees now additionally having to update JIRA periodically is a > bit > > > > like rubbing salt into the wound. > > > > > > > > On 6/23/2021 7:52 AM, Konstantin Knauf wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping for more feedback from other committers, but seems > like > > > this > > > > > is not happening, so here's my proposal for immediate changes: > > > > > > > > > > * Ignore tickets with a fixVersion for all rules but the > > > stale-unassigned > > > > > role. > > > > > > > > > > * We change the time intervals as follows, accepting reality a bit > > more > > > > ;) > > > > > > > > > > * stale-assigned only after 30 days (instead of 14 days) > > > > > * stale-critical only after 14 days (instead of 7 days) > > > > > * stale-major only after 60 days (instead of 30 days) > > > > > > > > > > Unless there are -1s, I'd implement the changes Monday next week. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:17 PM Piotr Nowojski < > pnowoj...@apache.org > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > > >> > > > > >> I also think that the bot is a bit too aggressive/too quick with > > > > assigning > > > > >> stale issues/deprioritizing them, but that's not that big of a > deal > > > for > > > > me. > > > > >> > > > > >> What bothers me much more is that it's closing minor issues > > > > automatically. > > > > >> Depriotising issues makes sense to me. If a wish for improvement > or > > a > > > > bug > > > > >> report has been opened a long time ago, and they got no attention > > over > > > > the > > > > >> time, sure depriotize them. But closing them is IMO a bad idea. > Bug > > > > might > > > > >> be minor, but if it's not fixed it's still there - it shouldn't be > > > > closed. > > > > >> Closing with "won't fix" should be done for very good reasons and > > very > > > > >> rarely. Same applies to improvements/wishes. Furthermore, very > often > > > > >> descriptions and comments have a lot of value, and if we keep > > closing > > > > minor > > > > >> issues I'm afraid that we end up with: > > > > >> - more duplication. I doubt anyone will be looking for prior > > "closed" > > > > bug > > > > >> reports/improvement requests. Definitely I'm only looking for open > > > > tickets > > > > >> when looking if a ticket for XYZ already exists or not > > > > >> - we will be losing knowledge > > > > >> > > > > >> Piotrek > > > > >> > > > > >> śr., 16 cze 2021 o 15:12 Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > > > > napisał(a): > > > > >> > > > > >>> Very sorry for the delayed response. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Regarding tickets with the "test-instability" label (topic 1): > I'm > > > > >> usually > > > > >>> assigning a fixVersion to the next release of the branch where > the > > > > >> failure > > > > >>> occurred, when I'm opening a test failure ticket. Others seem to > do > > > > that > > > > >>> too. Hence my comment that not checking tickets with a fixVersion > > set > > > > by > > > > >>> Flink bot is good (because test failures should always stay > > > "Critical" > > > > >>> until we've understood what's going on) > > > > >>> I see that it is a bit contradicting that Critical test > > instabilities > > > > >>> receive no attention for 14 days, but that seems to be the norm > > given > > > > the > > > > >>> current number of incoming test instabilities. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 2:05 PM Till Rohrmann < > > trohrm...@apache.org> > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Another example for category 4 would be the ticket where we > > collect > > > > >>>> breaking API changes for Flink 2.0 [1]. The idea behind this > > ticket > > > is > > > > >> to > > > > >>>> collect things to consider when developing the next major > version. > > > > >>>> Admittedly, we have never seen the benefits of collecting the > > > breaking > > > > >>>> changes because we haven't started Flink 2.x yet. Also, it is > not > > > > clear > > > > >>> how > > > > >>>> relevant these tickets are right now. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3957 > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>> Till > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:42 AM Konstantin Knauf < > > > kna...@apache.org> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Hi everyone, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> thank you for all the feedback so far. I believe we have four > > > > >> different > > > > >>>>> topics by now: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 1 about *test-instability tickets* raised by Robert. Waiting > for > > > > >>> feedback > > > > >>>>> by Robert. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 2 about *aggressiveness of stale-assigned *rule raised by Timo. > > > > >> Waiting > > > > >>>>> for feedback by Timo and others. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 3 about *excluding issues with a fixVersion* raised by > > Konstantin, > > > > >>> Till. > > > > >>>>> Waiting for more feedback by the community as it involves > general > > > > >>> changes > > > > >>>>> to how we deal with fixVersion. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 4 about *excluding issues with a specific-label* raised by > Arvid. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I've already written something about 1-3. Regarding 4: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> How do we make sure that these don't become stale? I think, > there > > > > >> have > > > > >>>>> been a few "long-term efforts" in the past that never got the > > > > >> attention > > > > >>>>> that we initially wanted. Is this just about the ability to > > collect > > > > >>>> tickets > > > > >>>>> under an umbrella to document a future effort? Maybe for the > > > example > > > > >> of > > > > >>>>> DataStream replacing DataSet how would this look like in Jira? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Konstantin > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 11:31 AM Till Rohrmann < > > > trohrm...@apache.org> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> I like this idea. It would then be the responsibility of the > > > > >> component > > > > >>>>>> maintainers to manage the lifecycle explicitly. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>>>> Till > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 1:48 PM Arvid Heise <ar...@apache.org> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> One more idea for the bot. Could we have a label to exclude > > > > >> certain > > > > >>>>>> tickets > > > > >>>>>>> from the life-cycle? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I'm thinking about long-term tickets such as improving > > DataStream > > > > >> to > > > > >>>>>>> eventually replace DataSet. We would collect ideas over the > > next > > > > >>>> couple > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > >>>>>>> weeks without any visible progress on the implementation. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 2:06 PM Konstantin Knauf < > > > > >> kna...@apache.org > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi Timo, > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks for joining the discussion. All rules except the > > > > >> unassigned > > > > >>>>>> rule > > > > >>>>>>> do > > > > >>>>>>>> not apply to Sub-Tasks actually (like deprioritization, > > > > >> closing). > > > > >>>>>>>> Additionally, activity on a Sub-Taks counts as activity for > > the > > > > >>>>>> parent. > > > > >>>>>>> So, > > > > >>>>>>>> the parent ticket would not be touched by the bot as long as > > > > >> there > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>>>> a > > > > >>>>>>>> single Sub-Task that has a discussion or an update. If you > > > > >>>> experience > > > > >>>>>>>> something different, this is a bug. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Is there a reason why it is important to assign all > Sub-Tasks > > to > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>>>> same > > > > >>>>>>>> person immediately? I am not sure if this kind "reserving > > > > >> tickets" > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>>>> a > > > > >>>>>>>> good idea in general to be honest. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Konstantin > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:00 PM Timo Walther < > > > > >> twal...@apache.org > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Konstantin, > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> thanks for starting this discussion. I was also about to > > > > >> provide > > > > >>>>>> some > > > > >>>>>>>>> feedback because I have the feeling that the bot is too > > > > >>> aggressive > > > > >>>>>> at > > > > >>>>>>>>> the moment. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Even a 14 days interval is a short period of time for > bigger > > > > >>>> efforts > > > > >>>>>>>>> that might include several subtasks. Currently, if we split > > an > > > > >>>> issue > > > > >>>>>>>>> into subtasks usually most subtasks are assigned to the > same > > > > >>>> person. > > > > >>>>>>> But > > > > >>>>>>>>> the bot requires us to update all subtasks again after 7 > > days. > > > > >>>>>> Could we > > > > >>>>>>>>> disable the bot for subtasks or extend the period to 30 > days? > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The core problem in the past was that we had issues laying > > > > >>> around > > > > >>>>>>>>> untouched for years. Luckily, this is solved with the bot > > now. > > > > >>> But > > > > >>>>>>> going > > > > >>>>>>>>> from years to 7 days spams the mail box quite a bit. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > > > > >>>>>>>>> Timo > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 21.05.21 09:22, Konstantin Knauf wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Robert, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Could you elaborate on your comment on test instabilities? > > > > >>> Would > > > > >>>>>> test > > > > >>>>>>>>>> instabilities always get a fixVersion then? > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Background: Test instabilities are supposed to be > Critical. > > > > >>>>>> Critical > > > > >>>>>>>>>> tickets are deprioritized if they are unassigned and have > > > > >> not > > > > >>>>>>> received > > > > >>>>>>>> an > > > > >>>>>>>>>> update for 14 days. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Konstantin > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:34 AM Robert Metzger < > > > > >>>>>> rmetz...@apache.org> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> This would also cover test instabilities, which I > > > > >> personally > > > > >>>>>> believe > > > > >>>>>>>>> should > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be auto-deprioritized until they've been analyzed. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 1:46 PM Till Rohrmann < > > > > >>>>>> trohrm...@apache.org > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I like this idea. +1 for your proposal Konstantin. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Till > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 1:30 PM Konstantin Knauf < > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> konstan...@ververica.com > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Till and I recently discussed whether we should disable > > > > >> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "stale-blocker", "stale-critical", "stale-major" and > > > > >>>>>> "stale-minor" > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for tickets that have a fixVersion set. This would > allow > > > > >>>>>> people to > > > > >>>>>>>>> plan > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> upcoming release without tickets being deprioritized by > > > > >> the > > > > >>>> bot > > > > >>>>>>>> during > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> release cycle. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> From my point of view, this is a good idea as long as > > we > > > > >>> can > > > > >>>>>>> agree > > > > >>>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> use > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the "fixVersion" a bit more conservatively. What do I > > > > >> mean > > > > >>> by > > > > >>>>>>> that? > > > > >>>>>>>> If > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would categorize tickets planned for an upcoming > release > > > > >>>> into: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * Must Have > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * Should Have > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * Nice-To-Have > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only "Must Have" and "Should Have" tickets should get a > > > > >>>>>>> fixVersion. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> From > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> my > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> observation, we currently often set the fixVersion if > we > > > > >>> just > > > > >>>>>>>> wished a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> feature was included in an upcoming release. > Similarly, I > > > > >>>> often > > > > >>>>>>> see > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> bulk > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes of fixVersion that "roll over" many tickets to > > > > >> the > > > > >>>> next > > > > >>>>>>>>> release > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> if > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they have not made into the previous release although > > > > >> there > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>>>> no > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> concrete > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> plan to fix them or they have even become obsolete by > > > > >> then. > > > > >>>>>>>> Excluding > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> those > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from the bot would be counterproductive. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Konstantin > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:25 PM Konstantin Knauf < > > > > >>>>>>> kna...@apache.org > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After some offline conversations, I think, it makes > > > > >> sense > > > > >>> to > > > > >>>>>>>> already > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> open > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this thread now in order to collect feedback and > > > > >>> suggestions > > > > >>>>>>> around > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jira Bot. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following two changes I will do right away: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * increase "stale-assigned.stale-days" to 14 days > > > > >> (Marta, > > > > >>>>>>> Stephan, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nico > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have provided feedback that this is too aggressive). > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * exclude Sub-Tasks from all rules except the > > > > >>>> "stale-assigned" > > > > >>>>>>> rule > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (I > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think, this was just an oversight in the original > > > > >>>> discussion.) > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keep it coming. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Konstantin > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Konstantin Knauf > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/snntrable > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/knaufk > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> +49 160 91394525 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica < > > > > >>>> https://www.ververica.com/ > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The > > > > >>> Apache > > > > >>>>>>> Flink > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, > > > > >>> Germany > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ververica GmbH > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) > > > > >>>> Zhang, > > > > >>>>>>> Karl > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Anton > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wehner > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Konstantin Knauf > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/snntrable > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/knaufk > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Konstantin Knauf > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> https://twitter.com/snntrable > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/knaufk > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product > > > > +49 160 91394525 > > > > > > Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/> > > > > > > -- > > > > Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink > > Conference > > > > Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time > > > > -- > > > > Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany > > > > -- > > Ververica GmbH > > Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B > > Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) Zhang, Karl Anton > > Wehner > > >
