Cool. I understand. Good example. Might contribute to the discussion. But let's not discuss in this thread if you can /cannot run workers. I started this and that was a mistake - as it diverges from the main topic. So the comment was mainly to myself as I was diverging from the main topic.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:34 PM Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:37 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ,,,^..^,,, >> >> >> >>
