*Motivation* I think we really should start thinking about making it easier to migrate to 2.0 for our users. After implementing some recent changes related to AIP-21- Changes in import paths <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-21%3A+Changes+in+import+paths> I think I have an idea that might help with it.
*Proposal* We could package some of the new and improved 2.0 operators (moved to "providers" package) and let them be used in Python 3 environment of airflow 1.10.x. This can be done case-by-case per "cloud provider". It should not be obligatory, should be largely driven by each provider. It's not yet full AIP-8 Split Hooks/Operators into separate packages <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=100827303>. It's merely backporting of some operators/hooks to get it work in 1.10. But by doing it we might try out the concept of splitting, learn about maintenance problems and maybe implement full *AIP-8 *approach in 2.1 consistently across the board. *Context* Part of the AIP-21 was to move import paths for Cloud providers to separate providers/<PROVIDER> package. An example for that (the first provider we already almost migrated) was providers/google package (further divided into gcp/gsuite etc). We've done a massive migration of all the Google-related operators, created a few missing ones and retrofitted some old operators to follow GCP best practices and fixing a number of problems - also implementing Python3 and Pylint compatibility. Some of these operators/hooks are not backwards compatible. Those that are compatible are still available via the old imports with deprecation warning. We've added missing tests (including system tests) and missing features - improving some of the Google operators - giving the users more capabilities and fixing some issues. Those operators should pretty much "just work" in Airflow 1.10.x (any recent version) for Python 3. We should be able to release a separate pip-installable package for those operators that users should be able to install in Airflow 1.10.x. Any user will be able to install this separate package in their Airflow 1.10.x installation and start using those new "provider" operators in parallel to the old 1.10.x operators. Other providers ("microsoft", "amazon") might follow the same approach if they want. We could even at some point decide to move some of the core operators in similar fashion (for example following the structure proposed in the latest documentation: fundamentals / software / etc. https://airflow.readthedocs.io/en/latest/operators-and-hooks-ref.html) *Pros and cons* There are a number of pros: - Users will have an easier migration path if they are deeply vested into 1.10.* version - It's possible to migrate in stages for people who are also vested in py2: *py2 (1.10) -> py3 (1.10) -> py3 + new operators (1.10) -> py3 + 2.0* - Moving to new operators in py3 + new operators can be done gradually. Old operators will continue to work while new can be used more and more - People will get incentivised to migrate to python 3 before 2.0 is out (by using new operators) - Each provider "package" can have independent release schedule - and add functionality in already released Airflow versions. - We do not take out any functionality from the users - we just add more options - The releases can be - similarly as main airflow releases - voted separately by PMC after "stewards" of the package (per provider) perform round of testing on 1.10.* versions. - Users will start migrating to new operators earlier and have smoother switch to 2.0 later - The latest improved operators will start There are three cons I could think of: - There will be quite a lot of duplication between old and new operators (they will co-exist in 1.10). That might lead to confusion of users and problems with cooperation between different operators/hooks - Having new operators in 1.10 python 3 might keep people from migrating to 2.0 - It will require some maintenance and separate release overhead. I already spoke to Composer team @Google and they are very positive about this. I also spoke to Ash and seems it might also be OK for Astronomer team. We have Google's backing and support, and we can provide maintenance and support for those packages - being an example for other providers how they can do it. Let me know what you think - and whether I should make it into an official AIP maybe? J. -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
