+1 (binding) Le sam. 12 août 2023 à 19:50, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> a écrit :
> Tuesday 10am 15th (!) of August, 2023 of course, not 26th. That would be > quite a delay. > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 7:48 PM Hussein Awala <huss...@awala.fr> wrote: > > > Thank you Jarek for raising this vote. > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 7:39 PM Pankaj Koti > > <pankaj.k...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > On Sat, 12 Aug 2023, 23:06 Jarek Potiuk, <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > I would like to raise a vote about modifying the result of vote from > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/4dkbwob1wyl3xjbqdsmbd1mvgzflzp1f. > and > > > > RESTORE dagrun.conf UI option for triggering DAGs in 2.7.0 (which > means > > > > preparing RC2). > > > > > > > > I am writing that in the name of the release-management "concilium": > > > > Ephraim, Hussein, Elad, Jens, Pankaj Koti, Rahul Vats, myself > > > > > > > > We discussed it today at the #release-management channel about the > > > problem > > > > with dagrun.conf functionality removal from 2.7.0 "Trigger UI". > > > > > > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/C03G9H97MM2/p1691833923538419 > > > . > > > > It's been also raised as concern by Hussein in the original PR and > the > > > > [VOTE] thread for 2.7.0rc1 > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/pc89dh43kmpj267rpospo1lk5j3j6qkl . > > > > > > > > I think we all unanimously agree that removal of that functionality > is > > > > practically breaking change for many of our users, who will have no > > > choice > > > > but to modify their DAGs and add param definitions to their DAGs if > > they > > > > want to continue triggering their DAGs via UI. > > > > > > > > While it is a good thing to do and this was the original intention, > > > > to "push" our users in this direction, we realised that we do not > give > > > the > > > > users a viable alternative and that effort required to rewrite their > > DAGs > > > > might be far too much and might be a huge blocker to 2.7 adoption. > The > > > > "push" seems to be rather brutal and forceful, not a gentle one. > > > > > > > > We did not realise this consequence when we - as a community - ran > the > > > > previous vote, but we now think releasing 2.7.0 without this option > > will > > > > cause a lot of problems. > > > > > > > > Since we all share such a unanimous view, we propose (and Ephraim is > > > going > > > > to do so) cancel RC1 and Jens already has PRs that should restore the > > > > functionality. PR is shortly coming. > > > > > > > > However, that requires modifying the results of the previous vote. > > > > > > > > Consider that my binding +1 vote. > > > > > > > > We want to accelerate the voting a bit and we also propose to produce > > an > > > > RC2 with the option restored to accelerate the process and not to > delay > > > the > > > > 2.7.0 release too much. I propose this vote to last till 10 am > Tuesday > > > 26th > > > > CEST - that should give enough time for everyone including the > weekend > > > > time. > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > >
