+1 On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 8:29 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> The consensus will be reached in 72H on Saturday 1st of April 8.30pm > CEST (unless there is a dissent). > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 8:18 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > Here is a formal ask for consensus on the new process of suspending > > some providers that hold us back from upgrading old dependencies. > > > > It has been discussed in > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/j98bgw9jo7xr4fvjh27d6bfoyxr1omcm and > > since it seems we have a consensus, I am calling for one (you do not > > have to respond +1, this is what lazy consensus is about - but feel > > free to do so). > > > > The proposed wording is in the PR: > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/30359 > > > > Copying it below for reference (might get slightly modified during > review): > > > > -------------------------- > > > > ### Suspending releases for providers > > > > In case a provider is found to require old dependencies that are not > > compatible with upcoming versions of > > the Apache Airflow or with newer dependencies required by other > > providers, the provider's release > > process can be suspended. > > > > This means: > > > > * The provider's status is set to "suspended" > > * No new releases of the provider will be made until the problem with > > dependencies is solved > > * Sources of the provider remain in the repository for now (in the > > future we might add process to remove them) > > * No new changes will be accepted for the provider (other than the > > ones that fix the dependencies) > > * The provider will be removed from the list of Apache Airflow extras > > in the next minor/major release > > (2.7.0, 2.8.0, 3.0.0 etc.) > > * Tests of the provider will not be run on our CI (in main branch) > > * Dependencies of the provider will not be installed in our main > > branch CI image nor included in constraints > > > > The suspension might be triggered by any committer, providing that: > > > > * The maintainers of dependencies of the provider are notified about > > the issue and are given a reasonable > > time to resolve it (at least 1 week) > > * Other options to resolve the issue have been exhausted and there are > > good reasons for upgrading > > the old dependencies in question > > * Explanation, why we need to suspend the provider is stated in a > > public discussion in the devlist. Followed > > by LAZY CONSENSUS or VOTE (with the majority of the committers > > agreeing that we should suspend the provider) > > > > The suspension will be lifted when the dependencies of the provider > > are made compatible with the Apache > > Airflow and with other providers. > > > > J. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > -- Eugene
