Hey folks! As a follow-up, if you're interested in following along with this project or even taking some tasks, I've created a dashboard using Github's new Projects tool. You can see the backlog of tasks, who's assigned, the estimated size and priority of the task and it's current state: https://github.com/orgs/apache/projects/162/views/7?layout=board
NOTE: See the README (button in the top right corner) for a more detailed explanation of the priority and estimate fields (it's frustrating how hidden the README is for this Projects tool...) This will be a live board, new tasks will be added as they come up, but the general skeleton is there. Cheers, Niko ________________________________ From: Oliveira, Niko <oniko...@amazon.com.INVALID> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 4:41:44 PM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Proposal to Remove Executor Coupling in Core Airlfow Code Base CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hey folks! I went ahead and wrote an AIP for this proposal. It can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-51+Removing+Executor+Coupling+from+Core+Airlfow Please leave any feedback here or in the Confluence comments. Thanks for your time! ________________________________ From: Oliveira, Niko <oniko...@amazon.com.INVALID> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:28 PM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposal to Remove Executor Coupling in Core Airlfow Code Base Hey all! Recently I have spent some time investigating the occurrences of hardcoded Executor logic within core Airflow code and put together a mini-AIP of sorts on Github Discussions (it was nice to use GH markdown and automatic code snippets). I'm particularly interested to hear if folks think an AIP would be reasonable for this set of changes or if the community is fine with using Discussions alone and beginning development without an AIP. https://github.com/apache/airflow/discussions/27241 Thanks for you time!
