Valid concerns about migrations -- I share the same concern On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 at 12:17, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> +0.5 (binding). (See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting - for > fractional votes). > > A bit more comment here: > > See my last comment in the AIP. I am not sure if this is the right way but > it's conditional +1. I love the idea, and proposal. Mostly because it will > make DAG authoring more "modern" looking and remove a lot of confusion on > where templating can be used. > > But we need to very carefully design the migration process for our users > and make it easy and painless. While we have other breaking changes - those > are mostly "environmental/deployment related" - but this one requires 9X% > of DAGs of pretty much anyone who migrates to Airflow 3 to change their > dags - possibly before in a transitional Airflow 2.11 version to be > modified. Albeit the modifications can be automated). Initially when we > discussed Airflow 3 there were a few voices telling "if a change will > require changing DAGs in bulk - it's a non-go". This one changes the > assumption - it will basically REQUIRE to change pretty much all the dags > of Anyone who migrates to Airflow 3. > > I do not think any other change we propose has the same property so far - I > think for now this is the only one that has such a big implication and > requires a deliberate migration of all the DAGs. IF that change is > accepted, it also means that the migration process involving DAG > modifications has to be designed (because no other change requires it - > with the exception of Task Isolation but this one has much less impact IMHO > - and AIP-44 in Airflow 2 might actually help in the migration process). > > So IMHO - if we figure out exactly how incremental migrations should be > done by our users in this case, I am all in. If we leave it to the users > and do not provide suitable process/tooling/incremental approach they could > take, this one might be a huge blocker (because of the risk that the users > will have to take during migration). > > J. > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:00 AM Aritra Basu <aritrabasu1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > -- > > Regards, > > Aritra Basu > > > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2024, 1:14 pm Tzu-ping Chung, <t...@astronomer.io.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I’m calling for a vote on AIP-80: Explicit Template Fields in Operator > > > Arguments. > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/2grOEg > > > > > > This proposal aims to improve how Airflow defines template fields, and > > > help users avoid annoying pitfalls currently exist. > > > > > > Discussion thread: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/yjcgb6fhn365n3307blq4y4v50gjynsy > > > > > > Please vote accordingly: > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > > > > > Votes from PMC members and committers are binding, but everyone in the > > > community is also encouraged to vote. > > > > > > The vote will run for 5 days and last until 2024-07-30 8:00 UTC. > > > > > > Consider this as my vote as +1. > > > > > > TP > > >
