+1 binding. The concerns are 100% valid. However, I think we have a path ahead with all 3 options:
1. Airflow 2.11 with new Airflow 3-style templating 2. Compat package to include "Airflow3BaseOperator" similar to Python "six" package [1]. 3. Upgrade utilities by using PyBowler [2] or Ruff (as used for Numpy 1 to 2 migrations) h [1] https://github.com/benjaminp/six | https://pypi.org/project/six/ [2] https://pybowler.io/ [3] https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/numpy2-deprecation/ | https://numpy.org/doc/stable/numpy_2_0_migration_guide.html On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 11:59, Tzu-ping Chung <t...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > I expect the compatibility layer to be delivered when 3.0 is generally > available for testing, and to continue to work during the entire duration > of Airflow 3.x—this should not be a big ask since the 2.x line is not going > to receive new features, and the new syntax should not break compatibility > for until the theoretical 4.0. > > We should be able to stop adding new features quite quickly after 3.0, or > even immediately, so the package would be in bug-fixing mode. We should > choose a cutoff time to stop fixing bugs at some point, but I don’t think > we should make the decision now; it depends on how the package allows > people to migrate—maintenance stops once it can successfully do so. > > One reason I’ve been calling this a “compat package” instead of > `airflow.providers.compat` is maybe we’ll be able to have a more flexible > timeline if it’s an entirely separate package instead of being bundled with > other compat stuff needed for providers. I’m not sure if that’s needed—open > for suggestions—but we can decide on that either way at any point before > 3.0 is out. > > TP > > > > On 28 Jul 2024, at 06:17, Vikram Koka <vik...@astronomer.io.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > After I read about the migration issues, I was very concerned about this > > AIP and was leaning against it. > > I like where the discussion is heading now and generally feel more > positive > > at this point. > > > > I am still struggling however, to understand the timing of what would be > > delivered when and in which release to enable compatibility. > > And therefore, what the transition sequence and timeframe would be in > > reality. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 12:03 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis > > <ferru...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> I think I like where the discussion took this. I was +0 on it based on > my > >> initial reading and generally don't vote unless I feel more strongly > than > >> that, but based on the direction the conversation is going, I like the > >> issues that have been addressed and adjustments that are being made. > >> > >> +1 (binding) > >> > >> > >> - ferruzzi > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > >> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 9:48 AM > >> To: dev@airflow.apache.org > >> Subject: RE: [EXT] [VOTE] AIP-80: Explicit Template Fields in Operator > >> Arguments > >> > >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > >> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and > know > >> the content is safe. > >> > >> > >> > >> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur > externe. > >> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne > pouvez > >> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain > que > >> le contenu ne présente aucun risque. > >> > >> > >> > >> Yeah. I think if we have the operator compatibility and a way how we > could > >> just develop providers in "Airflow 3" mode that will keep automatically > >> compatibility for Airlfow 2 (for a long-ish time) - I'd change my vote > from > >> +0.5 to +1. That would alleviate all my concerns. > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 5:49 PM Shahar Epstein <sha...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >>> +1 (binding) - it's an important feature IMO, and after reading the AIP > >> and > >>> the comments here - I think that TP's suggestion for compatibility and > >>> migration mitigates the related concerns. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:44 AM 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 > >>> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > >
