Jarek, No worries (: 🍻 -- ,,,^..^,,,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 3:42 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> ,,,^..^,,, > >> >> > >> >> >
