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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
