Thanks all for the discussion. Quick question for @Ingo: When do you think the PR will be ready (given that it's still a draft now), and who would review it?
Thank you~ Xintong Song On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:27 PM Dian Fu <dia...@apache.org> wrote: > The risk should be very limited and it should not affect other parts of the > functionality. So I'm also in favour of merging it. > > Regards, > Dian > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 8:07 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > @Dian Fu <dia...@apache.org> could you assess how involved this > > change is? If the change is not very involved and the risk is limited, > then > > I'd be in favour of merging it because feature parity of APIs is quite > > important for our users. > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:46 PM Ingo Bürk <i...@ververica.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello dev, > >> > >> I was wondering whether we could also consider merging FLINK-23757[1][2] > >> after the freeze. This is about exposing two built-in functions which we > >> added to Table API & SQL prior to the freeze also for PyFlink. Meaning > >> that > >> the feature itself isn't new, we only expose it on the Python API, and > as > >> such it's also entirely isolated from the rest of PyFlink and Flink > >> itself. > >> As such I'm not sure this is considered a new feature, but I'd rather > ask. > >> The main motivation for this would be to retain parity on the APIs. > >> Thanks! > >> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-23757 > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/16874 > >> > >> > >> Best > >> Ingo > >> > > >
