This is awesome. Waiting to see how it works in action! Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 2:04 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > 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. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
