potiuk commented on issue #22816: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/22816#issuecomment-1092510224
I don't say you were disrespectful. I was (and yeah I aften am just very, very direct) asking "why not" we should add someting is very wrong for Airflow in this stage. "Why we should not remove something?" is what we should be asking more. I think simply another composition method is wrong and if we miss something - we don't we add it. How about adding new dependency type: * "alll_success_and_fail_others_if_succeeded" -> working name This is fa more in-line with what we have in Airflow now and follows all the patterns of Airflow. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
