Thanks for clarifying my story Konstantin, this was indeed as we discussed.
Thanks Chesnay and Thomas for your input too!
On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 at 02:43, Thomas Weise wrote:
> This plan LGTM.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 4:28 AM Chesnay Schepler
> wrote:
> >
> > That sounds fi
This plan LGTM.
Thanks,
Thomas
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 4:28 AM Chesnay Schepler wrote:
>
> That sounds fine to me.
>
> On 23/02/2022 10:49, Konstantin Knauf wrote:
> > Hi Chesnay, Hi everyone,
> >
> > I think the idea for the migration is the following (with the example of
> > ElasticSearch). I
That sounds fine to me.
On 23/02/2022 10:49, Konstantin Knauf wrote:
Hi Chesnay, Hi everyone,
I think the idea for the migration is the following (with the example of
ElasticSearch). I talked to Martijn offline.
1. ElasticSearch Connector is released from the core repository with the
Flink 1.1
Hi Chesnay, Hi everyone,
I think the idea for the migration is the following (with the example of
ElasticSearch). I talked to Martijn offline.
1. ElasticSearch Connector is released from the core repository with the
Flink 1.15.0 release. No changes.
2. At the beginning of the Flink 1.16 release
If we don't make a release, I think it would appear as partially
externalized (since the binaries are still only created with Flink core,
not from the external repository).
I'm wondering you are referring to when you say "it appear[s]". Users
don't know about it, and contributors can be easily
Hi Chesnay,
I think the advantage of also doing a release is that we have then
completely externalized the connector. If we don't make a release, I think
it would appear as partially externalized (since the binaries are still
only created with Flink core, not from the external repository). It woul
Why do you want to immediately do a release for the elasticsearch
connector? What does that provide us?
I'd rather first have a fully working setup and integrated documentation
before thinking about releasing anything.
Once we have that we may be able to externalize all connectors within 1
rel
+1 (non-binding)
> On 18.02.2022, at 15:12, Konstantin Knauf wrote:
>
> +1 to the approach.
>
> I expect that we will encounter more questions and challenges as we go,
> but these are best discussed and addressed in the context of a specific
> connector like ElasticSearch.
>
> On Fri, Feb 18,
+1 to the approach.
I expect that we will encounter more questions and challenges as we go,
but these are best discussed and addressed in the context of a specific
connector like ElasticSearch.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 2:54 PM Martijn Visser
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As a follow-up to earlier d
Hi everyone,
As a follow-up to earlier discussions [1] [2] to externalize the connectors
from the Flink repository, I would like to propose a plan to externalize
these connectors. The goal of this plan is to start with moving connectors
to its own repositories without introducing regressions for c
10 matches
Mail list logo
