“If you name it, you can own it” +1 for Dag, it can be an airflow term, much more so than DAG as an acronym can be.
> On 2 Sep 2025, at 08:03, Ankit Chaurasia <[email protected]> wrote: > > I totally agree that "Dag" - it is neither a proper class nor a proper > variable naming pattern. > > "DAG" can be used when referring directly to the class. > > "dag" makes the most sense as it aligns with Python’s snake_case for > identifiers. > > *Ankit Chaurasia* > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 11:23 PM Sumit Maheshwari <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 100% agree with Daniel. "Dag" seems to be the worst choice out of all >> options. >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 10:54 PM Daniel Standish >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I sort of don't really understand why we would write Dag. It seems >>> kindof the worst of both worlds. That's not what the class is. And it >>> doesn't really make sense as a proper noun. >>> >>> I would just use dag most of the time and DAG when you need to refer >>> unambiguously to the actual class. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 3:46 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think we concluded whether we should use "Dag" or "dag" - but >> I >>>> think the important goal of why we decided on dropping the "DAG" as >>> acronym >>>> was that we want to really start "owning" the "Dag" term - "Dag" really >>>> meaning "Airflow Workflow". >>>> I think using capitalized form "Dag" fulfills that goal better than >>> "dag". >>>> >>>> J. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 5:09 PM Pierre Jeambrun <[email protected] >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Response thread there. Can’t remember the full outcome from the top >> of >>> my >>>>> head but “Dag, dag, dags” seems fine, preferably for doc, new code, >>> user >>>>> facing, but not worth the trouble going through the whole codebase >> for >>>>> refactoring. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/8k338stlkkp07ko3no70p2nng757kd1w >>>>> >>>>> On Sun 31 Aug 2025 at 17:01, Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think our previous consensus was “dag" or “dags", but recent PRs, >>>>>> including mine, have changed them to "Dag". I’m fine with "Dag" or >>>> “dag” >>>>>> (like “dag” a bit more) as long as it’s not “DAG”. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe we should better document the decision this time. I can >>>> create >>>>>> that PR once we finalize it again here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Wei >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2025, at 9:13 PM, Daniel Standish >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Saw this PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/55097 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I thought we discussed this at some point that using just "dag" >> or >>>>> "dags" >>>>>>> is perfectly fine. De-emphasizing the mathy origin of the "DAG" >>>>> concept. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personally I believe we should leave instances of "dag" or "dags" >>> in >>>>> the >>>>>>> docs alone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is the consensus I recall just an invention of my mind? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
