DanielLeens commented on issue #11355: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/issues/11355#issuecomment-4940964361
Thanks for picking this up. Your proposed V1 boundary looks sensible: keeping this as a lightweight runtime schema-evolution timeline, rather than a durable audit/history contract, is the right first step. The main thing I would keep explicit in the design draft is the separation between: 1. normalized decision points the framework owns 2. raw connector-side signals or payload fragments that may differ by source/sink 3. bounded retention / redaction rules for anything users may treat as operational evidence That separation will make the first implementation much easier to review without accidentally turning v1 into a long-term storage contract. Since you're taking this forward, I've assigned the issue to you. A design-first pass that makes the retention boundary and the relationship to #11025, #11162, #11015, and #11328 explicit would be the best next step before implementation. -- 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]
