-1 from me.
I would favour individual small releases, not a back-port big blob.
And I would also rather _we_ put the effort in to working out compatibility
issues/breaking changes in providers (and to be honest avoiding them in most
cases) rather than making our users do this guess/experience breakages from
upgrades.
On Feb 18 2020, at 9:49 pm, Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> CalVer is a fantasstic idea.
> https://calver.org/
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:37 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Since we are close to run tests for backport packages at GCP I would like
> > to start vote on the release process for backport packages.
> >
> > The vote will last till Friday, 21st of Feb, 11pm CET.
> > The proposal is to release one single backport "providers" package for now
> > with Calver scheme:
> > *apache-airflow-providers-backport-1.10-YYYY.MM.DD*
> >
> > The conditions for release are:
> > 1) Unit tests are passing in master
> > 2) Backport packages are installable on latest released airflow 1.10.x
> > (currently 1.10.9) with python 3.6 and 3.7.
> > 3) Compatibility matrix is produced for tested providers (using system
> > tests where applicable)
> > 4) Only PMCs have binding votes on the release as with Apache Airflow
> > official releases.
> >
> > Committers have a binding vote but everyone from the community is
> > encouraged to cast an advisory vote.
> >
> > Consider this my biding +1 vote.
> > J.
> > --
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>
>
