+1 on bumping min version for some providers that need it once we release airflow 2.1.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on bumping minimum required Airflow version for certain providers. That > should be the main benefit of decoupling Providers from Core Airflow. > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:42 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 for bumping the major version of the few (3 or 4 or so) providers that >> need this, and setting `apache-airflow>=2.1` in their requirements then! >> >> On Thu, 15 Apr, 2021 at 23:30, .... <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes. We want to use a feature that will only be available in Airflow 2.1. >> Do we allow such situations or do we want to try to maintain backward >> compatibility with Airflow 2.0 at all cost? If we copy some code to the >> providers we can still be backward compatible with Airflow 2.0. Earlier, >> Jarek suggested that we can and should keep these compatible, but then we >> came to an agreement that if we manage the package and core versions >> properly, this may not be needed. >> >> . Have I understood correctly, and more importantly, providers of v1 will >> continue to work with Airflow 2.1? >> >> Yes. Since providers don't use a private API, we can move >> _create_connection method to another package and make it public. This is a >> safe operation. czw., 15 kwi 2021 o 13:02 Ash Berlin-Taylor < >> [email protected]> napisał(a): >> >> Bumping the major version of the providers is only half the story -- what >> is the behaviour if someone has pins apache-airflow-providers-foo==1.0.0 >> and installs apache-airflow==2.1 -- pip check wouldn't complain but the >> code might not work? That's far from ideal. Ah, looking at the PR linked up >> thread , I would call this is more an issue off forward compat, rather than >> back compat, so the issue is that we want to release providers that need a >> feature that only exists in 2.1, and for any such provider, we will bump >> the major version. Have I understood correctly, and more importantly, >> providers of v1 will continue to work with Airflow 2.1? -ash On Wed, 14 >> Apr, 2021 at 22:31, Daniel Standish <[email protected]> wrote: The >> proposal to bump major for all providers with every core minor version >> seems like a reasonable solution to me, and it sounds like there may be >> consensus on that? Though eventially the version numbers may get pretty >> large :) This discussion came to my attiontion from engagement with the >> vault secrets enhancement. Looking at this as a test case for this >> question, to implement this change while maintaining compatibility with >> 2.0.0 would require an unacceptable amount of code duplication and mess. >> And it's a relatively simple change (so we can imagine it being much worse >> in other instances). >> >> -- +48 660 796 129
