I am +1 on pinning core packages, even though this adds a bit of manual labor for maintenance. This latest werkzeug issue highlights why this is a good idea.
Also +1 on changing the versioning scheme to something more akin to semver. The current scheme basically does not support patch-only releases and a 4-part version notation seems a bit much. Overall, I think that patch-only releases would make the project healthier. Two points though: 1. I think that there should be a more in-depth discussion about clarifying the release lifecycle policy. 2. This implies a lot more backport-related work, which is a bit of a burden since it is both tedious and boring. Perhaps we could look into having a bot help out with this (similar to https://github.com/miss-islington)? On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:04 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > I think the recent case with werkzeug calls for action here (also see > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-4903 ). We again ended up > with released Airflow version that cannot be installed easily because of > some transient dependencies upgrade. > > I think this is something we should at least consider for 2.* version. > > The problem is that simply running 'pip install airflow==1.10.3' . Right > now this will not work - you have to hack it and manually upgrade deps > (like https://github.com/godatadriven/whirl/issues/50). > > I really do not like that changes beyond our control impact the release we > already made (and is out there in pip). > > I've read recently the nice writeup > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x_VrNtXCup75qA3glDd2fQOB2TakldwjKZ6pXaAjAfg/edit > about > Python Dependency problems and I think it's the only solution to pin the > "core" packages. This likely means that we have to be ready to release > sub-releases with security dependencies updated (like 1.10.4.1 maybe or > change semantics a bit to more semver and start releasing 2.0.0- 2.1.0 and > then release security updates as 2.0.1 etc. If those 2.0.1 etc are released > only because of dependency updates/security bugfixes and some critical > problems, and if we automate it - I don't think this would be a great > problem to release those security-patched versions. We can have services > like pyup (https://pyup.io/) or even github itself monitor dependencies > for > us and create PRs automatically to update them. > > Would someone actually complain if any of the "core" packages > (install_requires + devel) below got pinned ? I am not sure if that would > be a big problem for anyone, and even if you need (in your operator) some > newer version - you can always upgrade it afterwards and ignore the fact > that airflow has it pinned. > > Here are the dependencies that are the "core" ones: > > install_requires: > > - 'alembic', > - 'cached_property', > - 'configparser', > - 'croniter', > - 'dill', > - 'dumb-ini', > - 'flask', > - 'flask-appbuilder', > - 'flask-caching', > - 'flask-login', > - 'flask-swagger', > - 'flask-wtf', > - 'funcsigs', > - 'gitpython', > - 'gunicorn', > - 'iso8601', > - 'json-merge-patch', > - 'jinja2', > - 'lazy_object_proxy', > - 'markdown', > - 'pendulum', > - 'psutil', > - 'pygments', > - 'python-daemon', > - 'python-dateutil', > - 'requests', > - 'setproctitle', > - 'sqlalchemy', > - 'tabulate', > - 'tenacity', > - 'text-unidecode', > - 'thrift', > - 'tzlocal', > - 'unicodecsv', > - 'zope.deprecation', > > Devel: > > - 'beautifulsoup4', > - 'click', > - 'codecov', > - 'flake8', > - 'freezegun', > - 'ipdb', > - 'jira', > - 'mongomock', > - 'moto', > - 'nose', > - 'nose-ignore-docstring', > - 'nose-timer', > - 'parameterized', > - 'paramiko', > - 'pylint', > - 'pysftp', > - 'pywinrm', > - 'qds-sdk', -> should be moved to separate qubole > - 'rednose', > - 'requests_mock', > > J. > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Another suggestion someone (I forget who, sorry) had was that we could > > maintain a full list of _fully tested and supported versions_ (i.e. the > > output of `pip freeze`) - that way people _can_ use other versions if > they > > want, but we can at least say "use these versions". > > > > I'm not 100% sure how that would work in practice though, but having it > be > > some list we can update without having to do a release is crucial. > > > > -ash > > > > > On 24 Jun 2019, at 10:00, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > wrote: > > > > > > With the recent Sphinx problem > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-4841>- we got back our > > > old-time enemy. In this case sphinx autoapi has been released yesterday > > to > > > 1.1.0 version and it started to caused our master to fail, causing kind > > of > > > emergency rush to fix as master (and all PRs based on it) would be > > broken. > > > > > > I think I have a proposal that can address similar problems without > > pushing > > > us in emergency mode. > > > > > > *Context:* > > > > > > I wanted to return back to an old discussion - how we can avoid > unrelated > > > dependencies to cause emergencies on our side where we have to quickly > > > solve such dependency issues when they break our builds. > > > > > > *Change coming soon:* > > > > > > The problems will be partially addressed with last stage of AIP-10 ( > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4938 - pending only Kubernetes > > test > > > fix). It effectively freezes installed dependencies as cached layer of > > > docker image for builds which do not touch setup.py - so in case > setup.py > > > does not change, the dependencies will not be updated to latest ones. > > > > > > *Possibly even better long-term solution:* > > > > > > I think we should address it a bit better. We had a number of > discussions > > > on pinning dependencies (for example here > > > < > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9e775d11cce6a3473cbe31908a17d7840072125be2dff020ff59a441@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E > > >). > > > I think the conclusion there was that airflow is both "library" (for > > DAGs) > > > - where dependencies should not be pinned and end-product (where the > > > dependencies should be pinned). So it's a bit catch-22 situation. > > > > > > Looking at the problem with Sphinx however It came to me that maybe we > > can > > > use hybrid solution. We pin all the libraries (like Sphinx or Flask) > that > > > are used to merely build and test the end product but we do not pin the > > > libraries (like google-api) which are used in the context of library > > > (writing the operators and DAGs). > > > > > > What do you think? Maybe that will be the best of both worlds ? Then we > > > would have to classify the dependencies and maybe restructure setup.py > > > slightly to have an obvious distinction between those two types of > > > dependencies. > > > > > > J. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >
