Thanks Xintong for driving this great work! But I’ve to give my -1(binding) here：
-1 to mark "deprecat SourceFunction/SinkFunction/Sinkv1" item as must to have for release 2.0. I do a lot of connector work in the community, and I have two insights from past experience: 1. Many developers reported that it is very difficult to migrate from SourceFunction to new Source [1]. The migration of existing conenctors after deprecated SourceFunction is very difficult. Some developers (Flavio Pompermaier) reported that they gave up the migration because it was too complicated. I believe it's not a few cases. This means that deprecating SourceFunction related interfaces require community contributors to reduce the migration cost before starting the migration work. 2. IIRC, the function of SinkV2 cannot currently cover SinkFunction as described in FLIP-287[2], it means the migration path after deprecate SinkFunction/Sinkv1 does not exist, thus we cannot mark the related interfaces of sinkfunction/sinkv1 as deprecated in 1.18. Based on these two cognitions, I think we should not mark these interfaces as must to have in 2.0. Maintaining the two sets of source/sink interfaces is not a concern for me, users can choose the interface to implement according to their energy and needs. Btw, some work items in 2.0 are marked as must to have, but no contributor has claimed them yet. I think this is a risk and hope the Release Managers could pay attention to it. Thank you all RMs for your work, sorry again for interrupting the vote Best, Leonard [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/sqq26s9rorynr4vx4nhxz3fmmxpgtdqp [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=240880853 > On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:11 PM, Yuan Mei <yuanmei.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As a second thought, I think "Eager State Declaration" is probably not a > must-have. > > I was originally thinking it is a prerequisite for "state querying for > disaggregated state management". > > Since disaggregated state management itself is not a must-have, "Eager > State Declaration" is not as well. We can downgrade it to "nice to have" if > no objection. > > Best > > Yuan > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 7:02 PM Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com.invalid> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 12:52 PM Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> Thanks for driving this and great to see us moving forward. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Yu >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 11:59, Feng Wang <wangfeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> Thanks for driving this, looking forward to the next stage of flink. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 5:31 PM Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to start the VOTE for the must-have work items for release >> 2.0 >>>>> [1]. The corresponding discussion thread is [2]. >>>>> >>>>> Please note that once the vote is approved, any changes to the >>> must-have >>>>> items (adding / removing must-have items, changing the priority) >>> requires >>>>> another vote. Assigning contributors / reviewers, updating >>> descriptions / >>>>> progress, changes to nice-to-have items do not require another vote. >>>>> >>>>> The vote will be open until at least July 12, following the consensus >>>>> voting process. Votes of PMC members are binding. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Xintong >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/2.0+Release >>>>> >>>>> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/l3dkdypyrovd3txzodn07lgdwtwvhgk4 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
