Just checked, no this was in 2.10 releases. NM then. Still, I think we should not add new extras to `apache-airflow` in general, and definitely not for anything other than direct provider “short-names”.
-ash > On 11 Apr 2025, at 09:02, Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > Oh hang on wait a moment. > > Is aiobotocore a new extra that is not available in 2.10.5 or any early > versions? > > If that is the case then I’d instead vote that we don’t add new extras to > `apache-airflow`, and we instead remove it. I grudgingly accept that having > `apache-airflow[amazon]` make sense, but `aiobotocore` isn’t the name of the > provider, and you need to know what it means anyway, so I don’t think we > should have it as an extra anywhere other than on the provider. > > -ash > >> On 11 Apr 2025, at 08:40, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >> >> A draft PR here (i will split it as there are few unrelated changes) >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49103 -> but it shows how we can >> automatically set the min versions in "apache-airflow" meta-package (with >> 6-months-old provider versions). >> >> That will quite likely help to get the "Resolution too deep" error solved, >> and I think it has a nice property - that we can treat it as "recommended" >> range of versions for providers - while giving all the flexibility to the >> user to keep their old versions or downgrade. >> >> >> J. >> >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 7:01 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >> >>> Actually what I see when I attempted to do it - is that even if we >>> introduce it - it is not going to be a hard requirement. It is just a soft >>> limit when installing full apache-airflow[with extras]. >>> >>> It will be more of a default behaviour to limit the providers when extras >>> are used but will be easy to override and it will not apply when you >>> install airflow-core /task-sdk/ providers directly. So yes - I think no >>> real drawback >>> >>> This limits will only be on extras of the 'apache-airflow' and in case >>> someone used the extras so far - the were not able to control the version >>> of provider that will be used anyway - and this only used a lower version >>> of provider than latest I'd some other package was installed at the same >>> time that was conflicting with latest provider.. >>> >>> Thoss limits are not going to be persistent, they are going to simply be >>> taken into account when apache-airflow{provider} is used and only for the >>> time of the installation. It will not prevent the user from >>> upgrading/downgrading the provider later. And also user still be able to >>> remove extra and use the provider directly in the same `pip install` >>> command >>> >>> I have a draft change that sets the lower bound to now() -6 months + >>> manual overrides if we need to get some new provider limited to latest >>> version this way for example. I am still coming back from US and will be >>> home later today and try it and I think some form of it will be good to >>> have - 6 months seems reasonable and it will have the 'self-maintenance' >>> capability. >>> >>> J. >>> >>> czw., 10 kwi 2025, 22:46 użytkownik Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> >>> napisał: >>> >>>> There absolutely is a downside to the users — “forcing" users to upgrade >>>> providers along with Airflow version makes upgrades a much more daunting >>>> experience. >>>> >>>>> On 10 Apr 2025, at 21:31, Maciej Obuchowski <mobuchow...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> For OpenLineage we'd definitely like something like this. >>>>> IMO there is no downside to restricting the providers to the latest >>>>> released version. >>>>> We could go with the chicken-egg for the next release - that would add >>>> at >>>>> least one useful >>>>> feature authored by Kacper Muda - >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/48941 >>>>> but even without it it's not broken, just missing that feature. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> czw., 10 kwi 2025 o 21:49 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> napisał(a): >>>>> >>>>>> Accidentally It turned out - with today's investigation of why RC >>>> images >>>>>> are not building that it is VERY needed. It seems that `pip` resolution >>>>>> works currently with our meta-package in a very bad way. If in our >>>>>> pyproject.toml we have just >>>>>> "amazon' = "apache-airflow-providers-amazon", "google" = >>>>>> "apache-airflow-providers-google" .... >>>>>> >>>>>> then >>>>>> >>>>>> apache-airflow[google,amazon] - will lead pip to download and try to >>>>>> resolve ALL VERSIONS or apparently ALL providers that have ever been >>>>>> released. That means we have 100 amazon, 100 google - and if you have >>>> more >>>>>> extras - 10s or 100s of other providers to consider. And essentially >>>> what >>>>>> pip tries to do is - try all combinations of those to find out which >>>> ones >>>>>> are good. Or at least very, very big subset of those providers. Which >>>>>> actually explains the "Resolution Too Deep" problem we tried to >>>> diagnose >>>>>> and investigate over the last few weeks. >>>>>> >>>>>> So summarising: >>>>>> * resolution too deep was actually "real" issue >>>>>> * it was caused by no lower-bounds in providers in meta package >>>>>> * we will have to set those lower-binds to something reasonable (and I >>>>>> might start later today with simply latest released versions if i have >>>>>> internet on my flight back from the US) >>>>>> * and we will have to keep those min versions updated and bumped >>>>>> periodically >>>>>> >>>>>> The last case is interesting - because it will finally force us to >>>>>> introduce some policy on how old providers we support when we release >>>>>> airflow. With Airflow 3 I think we are good with basically "latest" >>>>>> versions (and maybe get a few versions back for crucial providers). >>>> But we >>>>>> can discuss it later. >>>>>> >>>>>> J. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 2:49 PM Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I assume this is not necessary when the constraint is already set on >>>> the >>>>>>> provider side? For example, FAB provider has a dependency on Airflow 3 >>>>>>> (`apache-airflow>=3.0.0` in `providers/fab/pyproject.toml`) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2025/04/10 17:22:13 Jarek Potiuk wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TL;DR; Do people who work on some providers think that Airflow 3 >>>> should >>>>>>>> have minimum version of those? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While discussing a question about chicken-egg providers with Kaxil, I >>>>>>>> realized that we can finally have min versions of providers easily >>>>>> added >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> "apache-airflow" meta-package. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Simply speaking - we can say that for example >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> apache-airflow[openlineage] -> >>>>>>> apache-airflow-providers-openlineage>=2.1.3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Previously it was not that easy or straightforward, but now we can do >>>>>> it >>>>>>>> easily - just changing: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "openlineage" = [ >>>>>>>> "apache-airflow-providers-openlineage" >>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "openlineage" = [ >>>>>>>> "apache-airflow-providers-openlineage>=2.1.3" >>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We will likely have to change the tooling a bit to adapt to RC / Dev >>>>>>>> packaging versions for chicken-egg-providers - but this should be >>>>>> rather >>>>>>>> easy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And I think this is mostly about openlineage, standard, common and >>>> all >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> other kinds of providers that are "special" in some ways. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are we aware of some minimum versions we **SHOULD** put on those ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> J. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So the question is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >>>> >>>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
