Github user maqingxiang commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/5357
Thanks for your review @zentol
I got it.
---
Github user zentol commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/5357
@maqingxiang You are correct that the parallelism check is redundant, but
that doesn't automatically mean that it should be removed.
This change imo hurts readability as the basic parallelism
Github user StefanRRichter commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/5357
In this case, could you please close the PR? (we cannot easily do that)
---
Github user maqingxiang commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/5357
Thanks for your review @zentol
As far as I know, If the partitioner of the edge is forward, then their
parallelism must be the same. Maybe I'm completely missing something...
---
Github user zentol commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/5357
I would be in favor of closing this PR. This change doesn't _really_
improve anything, but removes a simple (and intuitive) sanity check.
---
