I agree with Ash and Tomasz. If it were not for the history, I think in an ideal world even the providers currently part of the Airflow repo would be managed separately. (I'm not actually suggesting removing any providers.) I don't think it's a matter of gatekeeping, I just think it's actually kind of odd to have providers in the same repo as core Airflow, and it increases confusion about Airflow versions vs provider package versions.
Collin McNulty On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:21 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <turbas...@apache.org> wrote: > I’m leaning toward Ash approach. Having providers maintaining the packages > may streamline many aspects for providers/companies. > > 1. They are owners so they can merge and release whenever they need. > 2. It’s easier for them to add E2E tests and manage the resources needed > for running them. > 3. The development of the package can be incorporated into their company > processes - not every company is used to OSS mode. > > Whatever way we go - we should have some basics guidelines and > requirements (for example to brand a provider as “recommended by community” > or something). > > Cheers, > Tomsk >
