+1 (binding) Thanks for driving this Piotr! Just one more (belated) suggestion: in the "Checkpoint vs savepoint guarantees" section, there are still question marks scattered in the table, and I suggest putting all TODO works into the "Limitations" section, or adding a "Future Work" section, for easier later tracking.
Best Regards, Yu On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 18:48, Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks, Piotr. Proposal looks good. > > +1 (binding) > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 11:20 AM David Morávek <d...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > Best, > > D. > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 10:54 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < > dwysakow...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Dawid > > > > > > On 24/01/2022 09:56, Piotr Nowojski wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > As there seems to be no further questions about the FLIP-203 [1] I > > would > > > > propose to start a voting thread for it. > > > > > > > > For me there are still two unanswered questions, whether we want to > > > support > > > > schema evolution and State Processor API with native format snapshots > > or > > > > not. But I would propose to tackle them as follow ups, since those > are > > > > pre-existing issues of the native format checkpoints, and could be > done > > > > completely independently of providing the native format support in > > > > savepoints. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Piotrek > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-203%3A+Incremental+savepoints > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Konstantin Knauf > > https://twitter.com/snntrable > > https://github.com/knaufk >
