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) > <jens.scheff...@de.bosch.com.INVALID> 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 <t...@astronomer.io.INVALID> > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 8:54:58 PM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org <dev@airflow.apache.org> > Cc: michalmod...@google.com <michalmod...@google.com> > 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: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org