Github user StefanRRichter commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3543
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
enabled and wishes so,
Github user StefanRRichter commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3543
Yes, will do today.
---
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
enabled and
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3543
Could you merge this @StefanRRichter? I think it is one of the last
blockers for 1.2.1 and it's a pretty critical issue...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user StephanEwen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3543
Looks good.
+1 for 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
Github user StephanEwen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3543
Good fix!
I think that verifying the possibility to reconfigure a job with respect to
stateless operators warrants an ITCase. Can we extend the `SavepointITCase` for
that?
---
If your
