It looks like everyone is mostly on the same page based on all the emails - so no comments :) .
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 07:45, Wei Lee <weilee...@gmail.com> wrote: > I’m +1 for 1-3 (assuming the doc changes relate to the backported version). > +0.5 for 4. I hope that changes not related to new features will be > backported when feasible; however, we can skip them if the required effort > is substantial. This is because failing to backport these items could > potentially lead to future conflicts with points 1 or 3. > > Best, > Wei > > > On Jun 24, 2025, at 5:32 AM, Jens Scheffler <j_scheff...@gmx.de.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > I am +1 for (1) to (3) [also assuming that (2) is mostly like a doc > bugfix!] > > > > For (4) I am hesitant and would rather be conservative. Every > cherry-pick has a risk to break something in old codebase. As branches > change over time and backport PRs are clearly less cautious reviewed it > might lead to introduced inconsistencies which might not be covered in > tests. I would also not back-port just for the sake of easier later > maintenance for other cherry-picks. But for (4) the rule might not be too > strict and every rule is made for exceptions which in (4) might be likely. > But I would not advertise to backport refactorings if no clear benefit. > > > > On 23.06.25 15:33, Pavankumar Gopidesu wrote: > >> Thanks Jarek, for starting this discussion, > >> > >> I agree with all the points. > >> > >> The real intention behind to backport > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51992 is , this area has a lot > of > >> ongoing development going and I felt it's worth porting to v3-0-test. > >> I myself faced situations where I tried to backport some doc changes , I > >> failed because of conflicts that previous changes were not ported back > on > >> the same file etc or conflicts with some lines. > >> So I am very strong on this if there are any areas with heavy > development > >> activity going. I feel it's worth backporting the changes and IMHO i > >> don't see any problem. > >> > >> Pavan > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 2:23 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >> > >>>> I think We are approaching it from the same point of view, just that > we > >>> have different conclusions. > >>> > >>> I agree. I think that simply there is one special case that we should > >>> "allow". Details below. > >>> > >>>> For 4, I do not have strong opinions on either front, but defining > what > >>> to > >>>> do and what not should > >>>> probably be that if that change makes it easy to backport something > else, > >>>> maybe have it? > >>> Yep. That's **exactly** my proposal. I do not want to backport **all** > >>> refactorings. That would be stupid. In my definition of 4. I want to > >>> cherry-pick those pre-commit when it's small, and automated and when > we can > >>> easily anticipate it will make it quite likely someone (soon) will do > >>> another cherry-pick that will be conflicting. > >>> > >>> Yes. It's not "0/1" and quite a bit personal judgment, and yes it > **might > >>> not** result in conflict (so we might end up with YAGNI), but I think > we > >>> should define (and trust committers judgment) when they do it, because > they > >>> want to prevent "others" to have problems. > >>> > >>> For example in case of https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51992 > -> the > >>> only reason why I think it makes sense to cherry-pick it is because it > is > >>> in the area of task-sdk that has been recently bug-fixed quite a > number of > >>> times and there are open related issues to this area that make it > (IMHO) > >>> quite likely to result in conflict. I think there are other areas like > that > >>> (UI for example) where we clearly cherry-pick a number of changes, > because > >>> there are some pretty active "bug-fixing" in this area as 3.0 had > still a > >>> number of low priority but either known or anticipated bugs that are > likely > >>> to be fixed in 3.0.3, 3.0.4 > >>> > >>> So just to clarify - I do not want to cherry-pick "all" refactoring, > but > >>> leave to the judgment of the commiter merging the request (and author) > to > >>> decide to cherry-pick such change anticipating it will make life > easier for > >>> others. > >>> > >>> J > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 2:57 PM Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Agree with point 1 - 3 definitely. > >>>> > >>>> For 4, I do not have strong opinions on either front, but defining > what > >>> to > >>>> do and what not should > >>>> probably be that if that change makes it easy to backport something > else, > >>>> maybe have it? > >>>> > >>>> For ex: > >>>> *PR 1 changes file1.py and file2.py* > >>>> *PR 2 changes some lines in file2.py* > >>>> > >>>> *We backport PR 1 as it's a bug fix and do not for PR 2 as its some > >>>> refactoring.* > >>>> > >>>> *Now while trying to backport PR 3 (bugfix), it conflicts and needs > PR 2 > >>> to > >>>> be picked* > >>>> *to land PR 3.* > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks & Regards, > >>>> Amogh Desai > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 5:02 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> I think We are approaching it from the same point of view, just that > we > >>>>> have different conclusions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Points 1-3 I agree with. > >>>>> > >>>>> We do already have this written up > >>>>> > >>> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/130e9600443e06c08acc1b28c69a62c858d6e6a2/dev/README_RELEASE_AIRFLOW.md?plain=1#L116-L129 > >>>>> On 4 I think of it in terms that “every change carries some risk” — > in > >>>> the > >>>>> linked example of 51992 the risk is almost zero, but generally: 3.0.x > >>> are > >>>>> meant to be bug fix releases on top of 3.0.0, and if it’s not fixing > a > >>>> bug > >>>>> we don’t back port it. The one exception I have to this is if the > >>> change > >>>> is > >>>>> needed to make it easy to backport a change that is a bug without > >>>> conflicts. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think our default approach has to be we don’t back port a change > >>> unless > >>>>> it is fixing a bug, otherwise the risk of “oh I’ll just fix this” > ends > >>> up > >>>>> introducing more bugs than we fix. Stability of a Minor release > series > >>> is > >>>>> my primary desire, and not changing things more than we have to is > the > >>>> best > >>>>> way I know of doing that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Things are slightly different now that we have automated cherry-picks > >>> but > >>>>> I still don’t think it is worth porting refactoring automatically. > It’s > >>>>> extra change and risk for almost zero benefit to users is my view. > >>>>> > >>>>> -ash > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 23 Jun 2025, at 11:43, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> BTW. I'd be happy to capture result of this discussion if we can get > >>>> to a > >>>>>> consensus or vote eventually in the "cherry-picking" guidelines. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:42 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> I wanted to start a discussion on "things that we cherry-pick" (to > >>>> vX_Z > >>>>>>> branch). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think there are different opinions on what kind of changes should > >>> be > >>>>>>> cherry-picked and it might be a good idea to agree on a common > >>>> approach. > >>>>>>> I think (following the comment of Ash here) > >>>>>>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51992#issuecomment-2995632849 > >>>>> that > >>>>>>> we can use a very simplistic and (I'd say) dogmatic approach "only > >>>>>>> cherry-pick bug fixes. Full stop". But I believe (and past > >>> experience > >>>>> from > >>>>>>> a lot of cherry-picking that I've been doing - multiple times > >>> helping > >>>> to > >>>>>>> bring past branches to be green and spending countless hours on it, > >>>>> that it > >>>>>>> should be a bit more nuanced. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would love to see what others think, but from my experience those > >>>> are > >>>>>>> the things that we **should** cherry-pick: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) bug-fixes (of course) > >>>>>>> 2) doc changes (when they are improvements or filling gaps) > >>>>>>> 3) dev tool changes (every time we did not, it resulted in hours of > >>> my > >>>>>>> time when things were breaking and I tried to reconcile it) > >>>>>>> 4) results of automated refactorings that have very low risks (in > >>> the > >>>>>>> areas that are likely to have cherry-picks) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> t) - is non-controversial I think > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) - is also relatively non-controversial and very low risk and > >>> gives > >>>>> our > >>>>>>> users a chance to get better docs earlier (even today for example I > >>>>> cherry > >>>>>>> picked this one: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/52068 - > >>>> because > >>>>>>> one of my friends who tries to learn Airflow 3 pinged me that > >>>>>>> "ConfiuguringRuff" link that we have in 3.0.2 leads to 404 NOT > found > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3) - it had always bitten us if we stopped cherry-picking dev tool > >>>>>>> changes. The thing is that external dependencies change all the > time > >>>>> and we > >>>>>>> are continuously catching up with those, also we improve, speed up > >>> and > >>>>>>> simplify the tooling - and often things that worked when branch was > >>>> cut, > >>>>>>> does not work today - countless, countless hours lost in one or two > >>>>>>> branches when we stopped doing it - I think even once or twice I > had > >>>> to > >>>>>>> just copy over most (but not all) the code from main to the branch > >>> and > >>>>>>> commit one single "catch-up dev tooling with main" big change > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 4) Is likely most controversial - example here: > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51992/ - those are the kind > >>> of > >>>>>>> (really small) changes that are done in "active" area (i.e. area > >>> that > >>>>> had > >>>>>>> and will have a lot of cherry-picks anyway, but they are done with > >>>>>>> automated refactoring - like renaming variables and such. This > >>>>> introduces > >>>>>>> clarity and readability, so this is good we are doing them. But if > >>> we > >>>> do > >>>>>>> not cherry-pick them and then we cherry-pick any change that > touches > >>>> the > >>>>>>> same code, this lead to a conflict. Conflicts are frustrating, > >>>>> especially > >>>>>>> those kinds - you never know what you should do - should you > "merge" > >>>>> this > >>>>>>> naming change with your change? or should you leave the original > >>>>> namiing, > >>>>>>> or should you try to find the past commit that changed it and > >>>>> cherry-pick > >>>>>>> it as well? This paired with the fact that we are using > >>> cherry-picker > >>>>> that > >>>>>>> allows to cherry-pick stuff very quickly, automatically and > >>> painlessly > >>>>> when > >>>>>>> there are no conflicts, make me think that yes - we should cherry > >>>> -pick > >>>>>>> those changes proactively as a service to those contributors who > >>> will > >>>>>>> follow up with their cherry-picking. It's just "good service" and > >>>>> helping > >>>>>>> others who will come after you. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That's how my definition of "what we should cherry-pick" is... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I wonder what others think about it ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> J. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> 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 > >
