+1 standard
+0 essential/essentials (makes it seem required)

If it were available, I would have chosen the "core-add-on" option. It
gives the feeling that it's a provider that complements the
core(apache-airflow-providers-core-add-on).

- 1 under common

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 22:12, Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hussein I believe the intent is that the provider comes as one unit with
> Airflow (it will be part of the pre-installed providers like: sqlite, http,
> ...)
> so in that spirit is essential.
>
> just to clarify PMC voting -1 is considered veto but the rule is applied to
> code change, I am not sure what it means for naming
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:15 PM Hussein Awala <huss...@awala.fr> wrote:
>
> > -1 on common (I explained why in the discuss thread)
> > +1 standard
> > +0 builtin
> > -0 primary
> > +1 core
> > -0 base
> > -1 shared (same as common)
> > -1 on essential/s (by definition, essential is a thing that is absolutely
> > necessary, which is not the case here, a lot of users use Airflow without
> > the core operators/sensors)
> >
> > > Jarek: how about "apache-airflow-provider-essentials" - that will not
> > limit it to only operators, we could add mixins, triggers, hooks
> (BaseHook)
> > and everything else that falls into "essentials" category.
> >
> > This might make "essentials" an appropriate name, and I've thought about
> > it, but since we can't easily move AbstractOperator/BaseOperator,
> Trigger,
> > and other models used as base classes to a provider due to the need to
> > manage migration scripts, is it a good idea to move some of these classes
> > and make the provider mandatory? Unless you have a suggestion to make
> > Alembic work with different sources (to also move the future migration
> > scripts related to the moved models)
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:51 PM Jed Cunningham <jedcunning...@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Easy one first: -1 on common
> > >
> > > +1 on standard, but also +0.5 on core or essential too.
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to