Hi Xintong, I can help review the PR.
Regards, Dian > 2021年8月19日 上午9:48，Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> 写道： > > Thanks all for the discussion. > > Quick question for @Ingo: > When do you think the PR will be ready (given that it's still a draft now), > and who would review it? > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:27 PM Dian Fu <dia...@apache.org> wrote: > >> The risk should be very limited and it should not affect other parts of the >> functionality. So I'm also in favour of merging it. >> >> Regards, >> Dian >> >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 8:07 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> @Dian Fu <dia...@apache.org> could you assess how involved this >>> change is? If the change is not very involved and the risk is limited, >> then >>> I'd be in favour of merging it because feature parity of APIs is quite >>> important for our users. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Till >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:46 PM Ingo Bürk <i...@ververica.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello dev, >>>> >>>> I was wondering whether we could also consider merging FLINK-23757[1][2] >>>> after the freeze. This is about exposing two built-in functions which we >>>> added to Table API & SQL prior to the freeze also for PyFlink. Meaning >>>> that >>>> the feature itself isn't new, we only expose it on the Python API, and >> as >>>> such it's also entirely isolated from the rest of PyFlink and Flink >>>> itself. >>>> As such I'm not sure this is considered a new feature, but I'd rather >> ask. >>>> The main motivation for this would be to retain parity on the APIs. >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-23757 >>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/16874 >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Ingo >>>> >>> >>
