asolimando commented on PR #5376: URL: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/5376#issuecomment-6526896251
> Does a minor change that only expands the supported scope count as a breaking change? And does it not need to be declared? Thanks a lot @xiedeyantu for your review! I agree that it's "breaking" in the narrow sense, but downstream systems can now get different plans with potentially rippling effects, all this by using the default configuration for a built-in rule, I am leaning towards being on the safe side here. As a further data point, the "Breaking Changes" entry was required in similar cases like [CALCITE-5293](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5293) (set-op `PruneEmptyRules`, see [#2915](https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2915#discussion_r976589860)). But if you feel strongly about it, I can remove it. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
