I have no strong "No" against any proposed change of these cases. So I go with +1 (non-binding).
P.S. Thanks Jarek for bringing this up again and your intense work towards airflow currently :) and thanks to Kamil for even creating this document. I like how the code is getting more and more consistent and clean :) Kind regards, Felix Sent from ProtonMail mobile -------- Original Message -------- On Jul 23, 2019, 18:34, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This email is calling a vote on the changes in import paths. It's been > discussed in > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4e648d9421c792d4537f5ac66f1a16dce468f816fc5221a9f9db9433@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E > > The vote will last for at least 1 week (July 30th 6pm CEST), and at least > three +1 (binding) votes have been cast. > > The proposal to vote is based on the document from Kamil > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F8zve5S78DXcjpPttW89HnqT0M0iKjT6fo9jX57Ef6A/edit#> > > The proposed solution is: > > - *Case 1: B: Contrib vs not: we move all that are "well" tested and > rename contrib to "incubating" or similar.* > - *Case 2: B: Airflow.operators.foo_operator.FooOperator could > become airflow.operators.foo.FooOperator* > - *Case 3: C: > airflow.contrib.operators.gcp_bigtable_operator.BigTableOperator could > become airflow.gcp.operators.bigtable.BigTableOperator* > - *Case 4: B: no namespace introduction* > - *Case 5: B: Keep "Operator" (and "Sensor") suffixes on class names* > - *Case 6: We will treat isolated cases on case-by-case (and my team can > do the job of GCP-related operators)* > > This is my (binding) +1 vote. > > Best regards, > > J. > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: [+48 660 796 129](tel:+48660796129) <[+48660796129](tel:+48660796129)> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
