Github user StephanEwen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2920
Manually merged in cc006ff18cc7032de3be3fdd9ef7ad383e88bba0
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user StephanEwen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2920
Thanks for the review, merging this...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user StefanRRichter commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2920
I think the changed semantics makes actually more sense. It should also be
fine for all callers, as returning null to them was also previously possible
and IRC there should be no special
Github user StephanEwen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2920
@StefanRRichter There is one change of semantics that would be good to get
your input on: A checkpoint stream to which a `byte[0]` array was written is
now actually empty and returns a `null`
