I agree with Kamil. I do not think we should knowingly release something that can fail silently in a “compatible” configuration.
Collin McNulty On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:23 PM Xiaodong Deng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jarek, > > I have no strong opinion on this, but would like to have clarification on > one question: I understand you highlighted there is no changes nor fixes in > the provider, but what if in the future we need to fix something for the > “classic” operator which may still be used in Airflow 2.1 or even lower > version installations? How will releases etc. be managed in such cases? > > I may have misunderstood or missed something, and be asking a dumb > question. Please correct me in that case. > > Thanks! > > > XD > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 22:15 Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Everyone, >> >> I am just about to release the September Providers, but Kamil raised a >> valid concern and he convinced me that it might be a problem if we release >> a new Docker Provider with minimum airflow version 2.1. >> >> The new provider has the new "Docker Decorator" feature which will be >> available only in 2.2. But other than that - it is backwards compatible - >> so you could install it on Airflow 2.1 and have the "classic" operator >> work. But if you try to use the decorator, you will be able to write a Dag >> with this decorator, but it simply won't work (and you will have no message >> about it). >> >> The Docker Provider has no other changes nor fixes. >> >> I am tempted (and quite convinced) to increase the min airflow version of >> the Docker Provider to 2.2 so that it can be only installed there (and we >> make it ready for the 2.2 release). >> >> Does anyone have a strong opinion on that ? >> >> J. >> >> >> >>
