>
> I think the word "bug" does not really reflect the reality :). The problem
> with those
> 1.10 operators is that they are missing certain features or make it very
> difficult to
> be used because some paradigms of service changed.


Well, "bug" and "features" are separate things. If there is a broken code
or bug in Airflow 1.10.*, we should fix it was my point :)




On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>
wrote:

> > On a side note, regarding "Some operators for Google services that are in
> > Airflow 1.10 have bugs that make it difficult or impossible to use them."
> >
>
> I think the word "bug" does not really reflect the reality :). The problem
> with those
> 1.10 operators is that they are missing certain features or make it very
> difficult to
> be used because some paradigms of service changed. Most of them will work
> to
> some extent, but the new operators in "providers" package are often
> rewritten
> from the scratch using different (newer) libraries and sometimes it is
> impossible
> or very difficult to implement those new features without breaking
> backwards
> compatibility. So sometimes we simply are not able to do both at the same
> time:
>
> a) add some feature or parameter
> b) keep the backwards compatibility
>
> As those two will contradict each other :(
>
>
> > We should definitely release backport packages but we should also fix the
> > bugs for the operators in Airflow 1.10.* code.
> >
>
> In cases described above that would mean simply using the new operators.
> And you
> can do it even now by copy-pasting stuff. We often cannot copy paste that
> code
> directly to airflow 1.10. because we need to keep python 2.7 compatibility
> there so
> we cannot release those new operators in 1.10 main codebase :(.
>
> That's why we came up with the idea of the backport operators in the first
> place
> - to make it super easy to install it when you have python 3.6+. It also
> facilitates
> people's move to python 3.6+ which is what we all want.
>
> J.
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kaxil
> >
>

Reply via email to