I don’t know how to compare the efforts since honestly I have very little idea
how many templated fields people tend to have. I can outline what each group
needs to do though.
Airflow maintainers
- Develop the compatibility layer
- One time work before 3.0
- Maintenance afterwards, at least until we drop 2.x support from all
providers
- Apply compatibility layer to all providers
- Drop compatibility layer from providers when they drop 2.x support
- Not a hard requirement
Third-party operator authors
- Apply compatibility layer to all operators
- Drop compatibility layer from operators when dropping 2.x support
- Not a hard requirement
DAG authors (that want to upgrade to Airflow 3)
- Same as third-party operator authors if the real authors don’t want to upgrade
- Convert DAGs to use the new syntax
> On 30 Jul 2024, at 04:55, Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks TP for the rework.
>
> I added some comments (iteration 2) on the migration ideas. I think these
> details make it clearer, still i have partial doubts how much burden we add
> to users to migrate DAGs to get to version 3. I very much favor the new
> templating but am not sure how many DAG authors we leave with migration
> problems behind.
> Do we have a guess or estimation how much burden we as airflow developers
> need to keep as compatability compared to the amount of DAG templates that
> people neet to adjust?
>
> Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ________________________________
> From: Tzu-ping Chung <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 8:54:58 PM
> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] AIP-80: Explicit Template Fields in Operator Arguments
>
> I have updated the AIP to include the additional compatibility discussions in
> this thread. Please take a look again.
>
> Specifically (although by no means exclusively) it would be awesome if Michał
> you could have a look and see if it addresses more of the concerns and could
> be viable for you. Although the vote is non-binding, I still would like to be
> more confident I tried to address the real concerns from the community, which
> is the real problem when it comes to migration.
>
> Link to document for convenience
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fx%2F2grOEg&data=05%7C02%7CJens.Scheffler%40de.bosch.com%7C9318251bd2fe4490b64308dcafffffe5%7C0ae51e1907c84e4bbb6d648ee58410f4%7C0%7C0%7C638578761240102546%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vVICot9p06VQJ56QmP9dwvEaWfpR7nCcMVqUexl6B3w%3D&reserved=0<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/2grOEg>
>
> TP
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
