Hi Kanstantsin! Looking at other mail thread, I think you refer to the CEP library API, correct?
The CEP library has not been labeled as stable yet. The stability guarantees that we introduced refer to the APIs marked with the `@Public` interface. The CEP library was still too much in change/improvement mode to freeze it already and mark it as stable. Have you seen parts marked as `@Public` where you had to adjust code? Best, Stephan On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Kanstantsin Kamkou <kkam...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi users! > > I can't upgrade from 1.2.x to 1.3.x without code adaptations. > Upgrading from 1.(0|1).x to 1.2.x produces configuration mess. > Maybe you can discuss changing the release plan, speed it up a little > bit and use the major.minor.patch versions as advantage to organize > the release process more accurate. As the result, backwards > compatibility might be guarantied among a single major number only. It > also sounds like a new version will be 2.0.0. This way flink might get > more trust as I will see the complexity of changing the version > number. > > > MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner > That is exactly my expectation. > > Best. > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi users! > > > > Flink currently maintains backwards compatibility for savepoint formats, > > which means that savepoints taken with Flink version 1.1.x and 1.2.x can > be > > resumed in Flink 1.3.x > > > > We are discussing how many versions back to support. The proposition is > the > > following: > > > > Suggestion: Flink 1.4.0 will be able to resume savepoints taken with > > version 1.3.x and 1.2.x, but not savepoints from version 1.1.x and 1.0.x > > > > > > The reason for that is that there is a lot of code mapping between the > > completely different legacy format (1.1.x, not re-scalable) and the > > key-group-oriented format (1.2.x onwards, re-scalable). It would greatly > > help the development of state and checkpointing features to drop that old > > code. > > > > Please let us know if you have concerns about that. > > > > Best, > > Stephan > > >
