jason810496 commented on PR #49470: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49470#issuecomment-2833442597
> I am afraid we will have to make it backwards-compatible in some way. I don't think we are going to yank 3.0.0, so theorethically (and many people do that) someone could install airflow 3.0.0 and then use newer provider version. We could - of course- potentially add exclusion `apache-airflow != 3.0.0` in those providers, but that would not be very nice message and we would have to - indeed - split it, backport only the the core change to 3.0.0, release 3.0.1, and only after that merge the changes to the providers and add != 3.0.0 there. But that is not a good idea I think unless we really cannot find a way to use common-compat or other if/else code to make things compatible. Here’s a polished and more fluent version of your paragraph: Thanks for the advice! I'll proceed with defining the method conditionally inside the class. Since the current `_read` implementation is already a bit complex due to compatibility with both 2.10+ and 3.0, having a separate `_read` method using `AIRFLOW_V_3_0` and `AIRFLOW_V_3_0_PLUS` flags to handle version-specific logic would make the code cleaner. I'll mark the PR as draft for now — I’ll need a bit more time to make it compatible for both 3.0-specific and 3.0+ cases. -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
