*Case #1* airflow.contrib.{resources} : *Solution A *
*Case #2* git *_{operator/sensor}{/s}.py : *Solution A *
*Case #3* {aws/azure/gcp}_* : *Solution C*
*Case #4* Separate namespace for resources :
*Solution A*
*Case #5* *Operator : *Solution A*
*Case #7* : *Solution A*
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:09 PM Daniel Standish <dpstand...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have tried to add some clarification to Jarek's summary, but I am a
> little fuzzy on exact proposal for case 3 so hopefully Jarek can further
> clarify.
>
> According to my reading, in this motion cases 4,5,6 are all either proposal
> *rejections* or otherwise have no effect, so attention can be focused on
> cases 1,2,3 and 7.
>
> *Motion is to adopt the following:*
>
> Case 1 - Solution A - Get rid of contrib
> All objects will be moved out of contrib folder and into respective
> non-contrib folder.
>
> Case 2 - Solution A - Remove object type suffix from modules
> Example:
> Airflow.operators.foo_operator.FooOperator becomes
> airflow.operators.foo.FooOperator
> Example:
> Airflow.hooks.foo_hook.FooOperator becomes airflow.hooks.foo.FooHook
>
> Case 3 - conventions for cloud provider etc prefixes
> *I am not sure exactly what the proposal is.*
> Example case is airflow/contrib/operators/gcp_bigtable_operator.py
> Since motion adopts case 1 solution A, we can assume it is now named like
> so: airflow/operators/gcp_bigtable_operator.py
> So what is proposed for this case?
>
> Case 4 - Solution B - *no change*
> This proposal was about namespaces but the motion is to reject the
> proposal.
>
> Case 5 - Solution B - *no change*
> The proposal was to remove class type suffix e.g. remove the Operator in
> FooOperator, but the motion is to reject this proposal -- i.e. motion is no
> change on this case, i.e. we resolve to keep "Operator" (and "Sensor")
> suffixes on class names
>
> Case 6 - *No change*
> This case concerns object naming inconsistencies, but motion does not enact
> any specific proposal.
>
> Case 7 - Solution A - use warnings.warn template for deprecation warnings
> (instead of zope)
> Example:
>
> # in old_package/old_mod.py
>
> import warnings
> from new_package.new_mod import *
> warnings.warn("old_package.old_mod has moved to new_package.new_mod. Import
> of "
> "old_package.old_mod will become unsupported in version 2",
> DeprecationWarning, 2)
>
> Reference implementation here:
> https://github.com/mik-laj/airflow-deprecation-sample/tree/master/solution1
>
>
> FWIW +1 (non-binding) on 1,2,7 -- unsure on 3.
>
> I am very happy that this motion now gets rid of contrib. Thank you Sergio
> for turning the tide with your effective argumentation ;)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 3:16 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Could someone summarise what the proposed name changes are, here, in this
> > thread? Pointing at a google doc and only giving partial examples is 1) a
> > bit difficult to quickly work out what we are voting on, and 2) using a
> > google doc isn't great for a longer term record.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ash
> >
> > > On 26 Jul 2019, at 09:14, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to recast the vote. Let's start from 0 :) . I would like
> to
> > > keep the July 30th 6pm CEST date, and at least three +1 (binding) votes
> > are
> > > needed to pass. I marked in red the modifications to the previous
> > proposal.
> > >
> > > Here is the proposal (details here
> > > <
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F8zve5S78DXcjpPttW89HnqT0M0iKjT6fo9jX57Ef6A/edit#heading=h.j4jc3i70qszo
> > >
> > > )
> > >
> > > - *Case 1: A: Get rid of contrib,*
> > > - *Case 2: A: 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)*
> > > - *Case 7: Native python solution (with better IDE integration)*
> > >
> > > This is my binding (+1) vote.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> jarek.pot...@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey Felix,
> > >>
> > >> For 7* -> I am in favour of trying the native one as well (I use IDE
> > quite
> > >> often ;) )
> > >>
> > >> J.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 9:34 AM Driesprong, Fokko
> <fo...@driesprong.frl
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Thanks Kamil for putting the document together. I wasn't able to
> > respond
> > >>> earlier since I was giving Airflow workshops throughout Europe :-)
> > >>>
> > >>> *Case 1: *Solution A → Remove everything from contrib into a single
> > >>> package.
> > >>>
> > >>> To make it easier to the end-user, my preference would be to get rid
> of
> > >>> the
> > >>> contrib package altogether. What's in contrib or not is a tricky
> > question,
> > >>> I think this is already reflected in the document since "maturity" is
> > in
> > >>> quotes. What would be the moment to transfer the operator to the core
> > or
> > >>> vice versa? I'm afraid that renaming contrib to incubating will
> confuse
> > >>> the
> > >>> user even more. For people who aren't as known with Airflow it isn't
> > that
> > >>> transparent which operator lives where, especially if you don't use
> an
> > IDE
> > >>> such as Ash ;) Besides that I don't think it is worth changing the
> > public
> > >>> API just for a different name.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Ok. I am convinced. I will re-cast the vote with this. It will make
> > easier
> > >> as we will not have to define other rules as those that we already
> have.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> *Case 2:* Slight preference to Solution B (let's say a +0)
> > >>>
> > >>> I like to search on Github with t, and then search for BashOperator.
> > After
> > >>> the change, you should search for Operator/Bash.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jarek, I'm confused with your vote on this, from your mail you
> state: -
> > >>> *Case 2: B: Airflow.operators.foo_operator.FooOperator could become
> > >>> airflow.operators.foo.FooOperator*. But the B solution is keeping it
> > the
> > >>> same, so that would mean - *Case 2: B:
> > >>> Airflow.operators.foo_operator.FooOperator *would stay
> > >>> airflow.operators.foo_operator*.FooOperator*
> > >>>
> > >>> My mistake. It was of course A. I think there is a little confusion
> > here.
> > >> This case is not for changing BashOperator into Bash but for changing
> > the
> > >> *module* name not the *class* name. So bash_operator.BashOperator ->
> > >> bash.BashOperator :) . you will still search for BashOperator in this
> > case.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> *Case 3:* I'm leaning towards B
> > >>>
> > >>> Mostly because it isn't as trivial to decide when it gets its own
> > package
> > >>> or not. Besides the cloud providers, there are companies like
> > Databricks
> > >>> and Qubole which might also end up with their own package because
> their
> > >>> integration is getting richer over time. Moving this is a bit painful
> > >>> because we need to deprecate the old path and move everything which
> > >>> introduces noise into version control etc.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I'd say, we should go for C. As I proposed. It's not as difficult as
> it
> > >> seems to group operators in packages and it has numerous advantages.
> The
> > >> nice thing about deprecations - we can do them in the __init__.py of
> the
> > >> packages which causes the noise fairly small (Git will actually
> realise
> > >> that the file has been moved and you can follow that. Maybe not as
> super
> > >> easy to merge changes later to 1.10.4 but it's not a rocket science
> > either.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> *Case 7:* Python native solution
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Yes.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>
> > >>> Apart from all, great work!
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers, Fokko
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Op di 23 jul. 2019 om 21:27 schreef Felix Uellendall
> > >>> <felue...@pm.me.invalid
> > >>>> :
> > >>>
> > >>>> 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/>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> 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/>
> >
> >
>
--
*Kaxil Naik*
*Big Data Consultant | DevOps Data Engineer*
*Certified *Google Cloud Data Engineer | *Certified* Apache Spark & Neo4j
Developer
*LinkedIn*: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kaxil
