Yep. Learning from the bigger move I will see how small is the "smaller" one I would love to see and can make informed decision.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:35 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah right okay, not an impossible task then. > > Still, I am very strongly in favour of the smallest change for the goal > (which is to allow back-ported providers to be installed on 1.10.x) - both > cos then most things are more normal, including code under a provider, and > then that way we don't have to fight our tools. > On Feb 5 2020, at 12:08 pm, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > If we make every namespace under airflow.* implict, then we have to > ensure > > > that our modules do not clash with _any and every_ possible top level > > > package that exists in PyPi, because we cannot know what might be > installed > > > by our users. That seems like an impossible feat. Have I > mis-understood? > > > If I haven't mis-understoond then I this is I think a strong argument > for > > > _not_ making more than we absolutely have to an implicit namepsace. > > > > > > > Nope. This is a problem for MyPy and Pytest only so mostly for our > tooling. > > And only if our own modules import packages with the same name as the > > module. So we are in full control here. > > > > > > > > > > -a > > > > > > > -- > > 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/>
