Jarek, I'm probably not ready to introduce this topic and push it forward, but I just wanted to clarify what are the borders of breaking changes and how they are applied to Airflow itself. Practice shows they are not, so it's may be a problem that you raised on the topic. Or may be not. It's discussion anyway (:
-- ,,,^..^,,, On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 3:00 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > I propose let's not "diverge" the discussion with this specific case > and whether it's easy or not. Let's focus on general approach and > whether the approach to make a policy makes sense in this (or > different way) but let's not argue if it is easy to deploy airflow > with mutliple different versions or not - this is a different topic > and if you think you have a case where you would like to introduce the > capabiliy of running airflow this way (which is a new and first time > raised feature) - i propose you start different thread Alexander. > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:39 PM Abhishek Bhakat > <abhishek.bha...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I Beg to differ with Alexander and agree with Jarek. There are multiple > ways to deploy Airflow. Mostly commonly used is docker images, in that case > using one image for all components is standard practice. If using native > pip installations, airflow components are launched by a single pip module. > So, to have different versions of components (as you mentioned) is adding > extra work just to keep them out of sync. A basic common sense would be not > to take extra steps to self sabotage. > > > > Thanks, > > Abhishek > > > > On 22-Nov-2022 at 4:35:09 PM, Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:37 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> BTW. "Workers from 2.2" used with "Airflow 2.4" is not even a thing. > >>> This is something that you should never, ever, try to do. > >>> This is even more common sense, and there are of course limits of what > >>> you can describe in the docs (whatever you come up with, someone might > >>> have a super crazy idea that you have not thought about and - for > >>> example - run Airflow 1.10 worker With Airflow 2 (why not? We have not > >>> written it should not happen). > >> > >> > >> At scale, you cannot upgrade all the versions and keep them in sync all > the time. For minor versions compatibility is expected. Obviously, it > doesn't for major one. It is common sense and practice in the real world, > sorry. > >> > >> -- > >> ,,,^..^,,, > >> > >> >
