+1 essential/essentials -1 under common Same as Jarek, no opinion on plurality
On 19 August 2024 14:32:01 BST, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >+1 essential (or essentials) >-1 under common > >(binding) > >Sorry for a bit of modification here, but I think >`apache-airflow-providers-essentials` (with `s` at the end) would be more >appropriate - showing also that it's about various "essentials". But I am >good with either. This is a nuance. > >J > > >On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 3:25 PM rom sharon <r...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Migrate all operators/sensors from core to dedicated provider. >> >> *Discussion thread* >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2dmlqkcmyomm4q7rrovygs6bw655zx07 >> >> This vote concerns two key decisions. >> >> 1. Provider name selection, options are: >> - essential >> - standard >> - builtin >> - primary >> - core >> - base >> - shared >> >> 2. Placement under common. should the provider be categorized under common >> <https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/main/airflow/providers/common>. >> >> For the provider name, please cast your vote using the following format >> >> [ ] +1 <provider name> >> [ ] +0 no opinion >> [ ] -1 <provider name> >> >> For the second decision regarding placement under common, please vote using >> this format >> >> [ ] +1 under common >> [ ] +0 no opinion under common >> [ ] -1 under common >> >> Everyone is encouraged to vote, although only votes from committers and PMC >> members are considered binding. >> >> The vote will run for 3 days and last until 2024-08-23 at 12 AM UTC. >> >> Please consider this as my own voting: >> >> *+1 essential* >> *-1 under common* >> *(binding)* >>
