Common compat provider is added. Now we can use it for any kind of compatibility code with earlier Airflow versions. We might add later some protection against adding breaking changes to the provider (it should be always backwards-compatible by nature), but for now let's see how it works ( https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/39530 is going to be the first one to benefit from it by avoiding a lot of code duplication for compatibility code).
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 2:54 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > Lazy consensus has been reached. We will proceed with common.compat > implementation then :). > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 12:54 PM Maciej Obuchowski <mobuchow...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> I know it's a lazy consensus, but I want to explicitly +1 this :) >> >> pon., 17 cze 2024 o 11:15 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> napisał(a): >> >> > Also the discussion was continued there >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/hjmrv1wc2rxhkvozpvccs4mhgwg5sw2f (for >> > posterity) >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Hello everyone, >> > > >> > > Following the discussion >> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/r302p5b03dpyncswn11nkjn98cpb6r5z I >> would >> > > like to call for a lazy consensus on introdiucing "common.compat" >> > provider. >> > > >> > > Summarizing what has been discussed there (and some of my further >> > > thoughts): >> > > >> > > * common.compat provider will contain compatibility code for earlier >> > > versions of Airflow, that providers might use in case they need to >> handle >> > > some back-compatibility code (example where it might be needed is here >> > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/39530) >> > > >> > > * as a rule, we should only keep compatibility code there (including >> > > indication of version of Airflow where compatibility code is not >> needed >> > any >> > > more). New versions of providers should switch to the "airflow" code >> > > gradually as soon as "min airflow version" is bumped to the version >> where >> > > compatibility code is not needed. >> > > >> > > * the "common.compat" provider should be strictly >> backwards-compatible. >> > We >> > > will release version 1.0 and for a foreseeable future we will have to >> > keep >> > > it compatible in the future, which means that we will get some old >> > "compat" >> > > code lying around for quite some time. We might change it if we add >> some >> > > retention policies for older versions of providers (We do not have >> them >> > > now). This code should generally be not touched, and does not have to >> > have >> > > test coverage other than test coverage from providers using it) - so >> cost >> > > of maintenance of that code should be **low** to **none**. >> > > >> > > * this will also make it possible to get some compatibility code for >> > > Airflow 2 / Airflow 3 likely. >> > > >> > > The lazy consensus will last for 72 HRS and it will be effective as of >> > > Thursday 20th of June ~ noon CEST. >> > > >> > > J. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
