Where is the code? I don't know what I'm voting for. If we want to do this, why aren't we cherry-picking this in the branch? I feel like I'm missing something.
Cheers, Fokko Op di 18 feb. 2020 om 23:14 schreef Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>: > How do you propose to address this Ash (and _we_ especially) ? Any idea how > _we_ can do it? > > J. > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:54 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -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 <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > CalVer is a fantasstic idea. > > > https://calver.org/ > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:37 PM Jarek Potiuk < > [email protected]> > > 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/> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >
