Thanks for letting us know, Matthias! As discussed in the release sync, +1 for merging these PRs.
Best, Qingsheng On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 5:17 PM Matthias Pohl <matthias.p...@aiven.io> wrote: > I'm requesting to merge in FLINK-32098 [1]. It's a minor change that > reduces the amount of exists calls to S3 while submitting a job (which can > be an expensive operation if the object actually doesn't exist but the > corresponding bucket itself contains a lot of objects). The PR is reviewed > and ready to be merged. The change itself is minor and covered by existing > tests. > > Additionally, I want to mention the two already merged (after > feature-freeze) changes: > - FLINK-32583 [2] which is a minor bugfix. I didn't explicitly mention it > initially because of the fact that it fixes a bug (which admittedly was > already present in older versions of Flink). I'm happy to revert that one > if the release managers have concerns. It's fixing a scenario where the > RestClient becomes unresponsive when submitting a request in rare cases. > - Migration from Akka to Pekko (FLINK-32468 [3], FLINK-32683 [4]): This > was agreed on in last week's 1.18 release sync. I just forgot to make it > public on the ML. The Pekko change will be "release-tested" as part of > FLINK-32678 stress test. > > Matthias > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-32098 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-32583 > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-32468 > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-32683 > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-32678 > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 10:58 AM Qingsheng Ren <re...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Thanks for letting us know, Alexander and Leonard! >> >> I checked these PRs and the changes are trivial. +1 for merging them. >> >> Best, >> Qingsheng >> >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 12:14 AM Leonard Xu <xbjt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Thank all Release Managers for driving the 1.18 release work! >> > >> > > - Deprecation works for 2.0 >> > > >> > > As discussed in another thread [3], we will not give extra extensions >> to >> > > deprecation works considering the overhead and potential side effects >> to >> > > the timeline of 1.18. We can accept tiny changes that only add >> > annotations >> > > and JavaDocs, but please let us know before you are going to do that. >> > >> > Alexander and I ready to deprecate SourceFunction APIs as above >> discussion >> > thread[1][2], now we apply the permission to merge following three PRs : >> > >> > The first two PRs [3][4] only contains @Deprecated annotations and >> > JavaDocs, the PR[5] contains @Deprecated annotations, JavaDocs, and >> > necessary tiny changes for example code as some examples with strict >> > deprecation compiler checks to SourceFunction API, it should be okay as >> it >> > only changed example code, you can check the tiny change in this >> commit[5]. >> > >> > Best, >> > Alexander and Leonard >> > >> > [1]https://lists.apache.org/thread/yyw52k45x2sp1jszldtdx7hc98n72w7k >> > [2]https://lists.apache.org/thread/kv9rj3w2rmkb8jtss5bqffhw57or7v8v >> > [3]https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23106 >> > [4]https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23079 >> > [5]https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23105 >> > [6] >> > >> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23079/commits/f5ea3c073d36f21fb4fe47e83c717ac080995509 >> > >> > >> >
