Thanks Kaxil, this looks right to me as well.
I updated the main Airflow 2.0 planning page as well to reflect the current
scope and milestones based on this meeting.

*Doc Link*:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+2.0+-+Planning

I also wanted to thank Kevin from the AirBnb team for joining the call on
Monday and offering to help with SmartSensors support as needed. I am
excited that this feature will be part of the 2.0 release.

Vikram


On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:41 AM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> LGTM! Thanks, Kaxil for putting this together. It is really helpful!
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:29 PM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have created a document to summarize the discussion from our third dev
> > call for Airflow 2.0.
> >
> > Thank you all who joined the call.
> >
> > *Doc Link*:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Meeting+Notes#MeetingNotes-#3:7Sep2020
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Meeting+Notes#MeetingNotes-%233:7Sep2020>
> > <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Meeting+Notes#MeetingNotes-%233:7Sep2020
> >
> >
> > To all those who attended, can you please double-check and add if I have
> > missed anything?
> >
> > To all those who didn't join, if you disagree to anything in the Summary
> > please
> > voice your opinion.
> >
> > Including the Summary here too (might potentially break formatting):
> >
> > *Key Decisions*
> >
> >    - *Smart Sensors*
> >       - Will be included in 2.0 as an *early-access* feature with a clear
> >       note that *this feature might potentially change in future Airflow
> >       version with breaking changes*.
> >       - Airbnb team would be happy to help on the support side answering
> >       questions related to Smart Sensor.
> >       - Add docs around different execution modes for Sensor: *Poke
> > mode*, *Reschedule
> >       mode* vs *Smart Sensor*
> >    - *Providers Packages*
> >       - We had a consensus on *releasing providers packages separately*
> > mainly
> >       because of the following reasons:
> >          - Separate cadence for providers compared to Airflow, so bugs in
> >          operator/hooks can be fixed lot faster.
> >          - Enterprises generally would not like to upgrade the “core”
> >          (Scheduler) as a small bug can break the deployment and
> > affect all the DAGs
> >          - Breaking library changes (new version of a library) can be
> fixed
> >          with a new version of Backport/Providers
> >          - Upgrades of backport providers are not “that” destructive i.e.
> >          even if you upgrade to a newer version and find a bug, you
> > could go back to
> >          the previous version without causing any issues at all.
> >       - Open questions / Action Items:
> >          - How would users figure out “breaking changes” with CALVER
> >          Versioning (which is very clear with SEMVER)?
> >          - Use plugin Mechanism to:
> >             - Register Connections from an external provider to allow
> >             custom field or hide existing form fields.
> >             - Register Operator Extra links
> >             <
> > https://airflow.apache.org/docs/stable/howto/define_extra_link.html>
> > for
> >             operators in providers so that a change is not required in
> > Airflow
> >          - Backport providers will only be supported/released for *three
> >       months after 2.0.0 released*
> >    - *Timeline to Airflow 2.0*
> >       - Only *critical fixes* (fixes to bugs that takedown Production
> >       system) will be backported to 1.10.x core for *six months* after
> >       Airflow 2.0 is released.
> >
> > Date
> >
> > Milestone
> >
> > Week of 7 Sep 2020 Create the 2.0.0-test branch
> >
> > While the scope is fluid, we would be rebasing this test branch from
> > master. After we completely freeze the scope, we would only cherrypick
> > commits from Airflow Master to v2-0-test branch if they are “in-scope”.
> > Normal development would continue on Master branch i.e. PRs would be
> > created against Airflow Master.
> > Week of 28 Sep 2020 Cut Functionally complete 2.0 alpha release
> > Week of 12 Oct 2020 Cut first 2.0 beta release
> >
> > Beta snapshots would be published to the Airflow Community to test and
> > create issues to make sure Airflow is functioning and backwards
> compatible.
> > Week of 19 Oct 2020 Cut bridge release based on 1.10.x - jump-off point
> to
> > 2.0. Probably 1.10.13 or 1.10.14 containing upgrade check scripts for 2.0
> > Week of 26 Oct 2020 Cut second 2.0 beta release
> > Week of 9 Nov 2020 Cut third 2.0 beta release
> > Week of 23 Nov 2020 Cut first 2.0 release candidate (2.0.0rc1)
> >
> > *Things to Discuss Next*
> >
> >    - *14 September (Subject to change)*
> >       - API
> >          - Progress, Current Work & Discussions
> >          - Any open questions?
> >       - Improvements to SubDags / Concept of TaskGroup
> >          - *AIP-34*:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-34+TaskGroup%3A+A+UI+task+grouping+concept+as+an+alternative+to+SubDagOperator
> >
> >          - *PR*: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/10153
> >          - Any concerns on including this PR to 2.0 ??
> >          - Do we want to support both TaskGroup & SubDags?
> >       - Process:
> >          - When should we defer the in-scope items to post-2.0
> >             - Completion by a date?
> >             - Progress by a date?
> >          - Progress, Current Work & Discussions
> >          - Scheduler HA
> >          - Docs Improvements
> >          - Helm Chart
> >             - Discuss the issue with sources
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kaxil
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>

Reply via email to