Sorry have missed this email and respond a bit late. I will put a draft for the long-term vision for the state as well as large-scale state support into the roadmap.
Best Yuan On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 10:34 AM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jiabao, > > Thank you for your suggestions. I have added them to the "Going Beyond a > SQL Stream/Batch Processing Engine" and "Large-Scale State Jobs" sections. > > Best, > Jark > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 16:06, Jiabao Sun <jiabao....@xtransfer.cn.invalid> > wrote: > > > Thanks Jark and Martijn for driving this. > > > > There are two suggestions about the Table API: > > > > - Add the JSON type to adapt to the no sql database type. > > - Remove changelog normalize operator for upsert stream. > > > > > > Best, > > Jiabao > > > > > > > 2023年7月13日 下午3:49，Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> 写道： > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Sorry for taking so long back here. > > > > > > Martijn and I have drafted the first version of the updated roadmap, > > > including the updated feature radar reflecting the current state of > > > different components. > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12BDiVKEsY-f7HI3suO_IxwzCmR04QcVqLarXgyJAb7c/edit > > > > > > Feel free to leave comments in the thread or the document. > > > We may miss mentioning something important, so your help in enriching > > > the content is greatly appreciated. > > > > > > Best, > > > Jark & Martijn > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 00:50, Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Jark, > > >> > > >> Fair enough. Let's do it like you suggested. Thanks! > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> Jing > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:00 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Jing, > > >>> > > >>> This thread is for discussing the roadmap for versions 1.18, 2.0, and > > >> even > > >>> more. > > >>> One of the outcomes of this discussion will be an updated version of > > the > > >>> current roadmap. > > >>> Let's work together on refining the roadmap in this thread. > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> Jark > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 23:25, Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi Jark, > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks for driving it! For point 2, since we are developing 1.18 > now, > > >>>> does it make sense to update the roadmap this time while we are > > >> releasing > > >>>> 1.18? This discussion thread will be focusing on the Flink 2.0 > > roadmap, > > >>> as > > >>>> you mentioned previously. WDYT? > > >>>> > > >>>> Best regards, > > >>>> Jing > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 3:31 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Martijn and I would like to initiate a discussion on the Flink > > >> roadmap, > > >>>>> which should cover the project's long-term roadmap and the regular > > >>> update > > >>>>> mechanism. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Xintong has already started a discussion about Flink 2.0 planning. > > >> One > > >>> of > > >>>>> the points raised in that discussion is that we should have a > > >>> high-level > > >>>>> discussion of the roadmap to present where the project is heading > > >>> (which > > >>>>> doesn't necessarily need to block the Flink 2.0 planning). > Moreover, > > >>> the > > >>>>> roadmap on the Flink website [1] hasn't been updated for half a > year, > > >>> and > > >>>>> the last update was for the feature radar for the 1.15 release. It > > >> has > > >>>> been > > >>>>> 2 years since the community discussed Flink's overall roadmap. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I would like to raise two topics for discussion: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 1. The new roadmap. This should be an updated version of the > current > > >>>>> roadmap[1]. > > >>>>> 2. A mechanism to regularly discuss and update the roadmap. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> To make the first topic discussion more efficient, Martijn and I > > >>>> volunteer > > >>>>> to summarize the ongoing big things of different components and > > >>> present a > > >>>>> roadmap draft to the community in the next few weeks. This should > be > > >> a > > >>>> good > > >>>>> starting point for a more detailed discussion. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Regarding the regular update mechanism, there was a proposal in a > > >>> thread > > >>>>> [2] three years ago to make the release manager responsible for > > >>> updating > > >>>>> the roadmap. However, it appears that this was not documented as a > > >>>> release > > >>>>> management task [3], and the roadmap update wasn't performed for > > >>> releases > > >>>>> 1.16 and 1.17. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In my opinion, making release managers responsible for keeping the > > >>>> roadmap > > >>>>> up to date is a good idea. Specifically, release managers of > release > > >> X > > >>>> can > > >>>>> kick off the roadmap update at the beginning of release X, which > can > > >>> be a > > >>>>> joint task with collecting a feature list [4]. Additionally, > release > > >>>>> managers of release X-1 can help verify and remove the accomplished > > >>> items > > >>>>> from the roadmap and update the feature radar. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> What do you think? Do you have other ideas? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Best, > > >>>>> Jark & Martijn > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [1]: https://flink.apache.org/roadmap.html > > >>>>> [2]: > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/o0l3cg6yphxwrww0k7215jgtw3yfoybv > > >>>>> [3]: > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Release+Management > > >>>>> [4]: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/1.18+Release > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
