To stir the pot a bit more, as someone pointed out, yes we have `DAG` but we also have `dag` because of the decorator. So if we wanted to follow code convention, is it `DAG` or `dag`?
I really don't want to start using `Dag` in code but I guess it is pythonic since it's technically a class name... Either way I can add it is as Option D: Prefer Dag in docs, use Dag for class/import and alias DAG (for backcompat reasons) On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 10:34 AM Daniel Standish via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > I’m not really proposing to rename to Dag in code. > > I’m mainly saying Dag in docs doesn’t feel right given that’s not the > object in code. > > Just one man’s take. > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 4:12 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Old habits but I am fine with DAG and DAGs :) > > > > He, he: "we've always been doing it this way" to the fullest ;). > > > > But ... responding to Daniel's concern. I would be indeed for having > those > > two options: > > > > 2a) Dag in docs, DAG in code > > 2b) Dag in docs, Dag in code (with DAG alias - no deprecation as it will > > break millions of Dags out there). > > > > That would be "proper" from the pure correctness point of view (DAG is > not > > a PEP-compliant name we have for the class). > > > > But only as long as we stress the implication and consequences so that > > anyone voting realises what those practical consequences are. > > > > To be perfectly honest - even if I think it's a good idea to add this > > option to vote, I am not in favour of it personally - precisely because > of > > the consequences. > > > > If we allow both `Dag` and `DAG` in the code the practical implications > are > > super messy IMHO. If people start using "Dag" in their code and publish > it, > > it will not work for pre-rename versions of Airflow, If we remove DAG > > eventually - all the published code with DAG will not work for future > > versions of Airflow. This will have a huge impact on issues raised by > > users and is generally "messy" - the overall implication of such code > > change will be that a number of users will consider Airflow Dags broken. > > > > In this case I would strongly prefer to follow PEP-20, Python Zen: > > https://peps.python.org/pep-0020/ - namely those two points: > > > > * There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. > > * Although practicality beats purity. > > > > So - as long as we realise the consequences, possibly we should add the > > option of "Dag in docs, Dag in the code" to vote on to address Daniel's > > concerns. > > > > J. > > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 12:43 PM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Old habits but I am fine with DAG and DAGs :) > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 07:18, Amogh Desai <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Not to explode this thread further, but "Dag" seems to be a good > middle > > > > ground to me for the reasons mentioned above by Constance and AI. > > > > > > > > And, "DAG" is the worst of all for me to use in day to day speech. > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 12:14 AM Daniel Standish via dev < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It's not an easy call. But I think my take is that Dag would make > > > sense > > > > if > > > > > we rename the DAG object to Dag. But if we do not then it does not > > > seem > > > > > right to style it as Dag. > > > > > > > > > > If we want to rename the actual object from DAG to Dag, then sure. > > > > > > > > > > If we stay as DAG, I just like being able to write dag midsentence > > > > because > > > > > that is how we do it normally when writing about dags. And DAGs > > looks > > > > > really awkward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 3:12 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for sending this notice, Constance. > > > > > > > > > > > > The older thread just blew up with too many opinions and calling > > > > > > a formal vote is the way to go. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 1:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very nice summary ! Thanks Constance :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 9:27 PM Constance Martineau via dev < > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviving this discussion after the canceled vote: > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/q7zdogwb76jko3vwz7tlsnl2cn3h3vg9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned earlier, I plan to *formally call a vote on > > Monday* > > > to > > > > > > > > finalize how we refer to Airflow workflows in writing (docs, > > > > > tutorials, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > blog posts). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will *not* affect code (DAG and dag remain as-is in APIs > > and > > > > > > > > decorators). The goal is to set a clear convention for prose > so > > > > > > > > contributors and vendors can align their content accordingly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why this matters: We’ve had inconsistent terminology across > > docs > > > > and > > > > > > > > repeated PR debates over capitalization. Standardizing will > > make > > > > our > > > > > > > > writing clearer, strengthen the Airflow brand, and give > > external > > > > > > > > stakeholders a single reference to follow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Options for standardization: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. DAG (all caps) > > > > > > > > - Matches existing imports (from airflow.sdk import > DAG) > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > > > broader ecosystem. > > > > > > > > - Keeps a nod to the original meaning ("directed > acyclic > > > > > graph") > > > > > > > > which still fits conceptually even if we later allow > more > > > > > > flexible > > > > > > > > graph > > > > > > > > types > > > > > > > > - Counterpoint: Feels overly technical or academic for > > many > > > > > > readers > > > > > > > > 2. Dag (capitalized) > > > > > > > > - Treats it as an Airflow-specific concept ("a Dag" = > an > > > > > Airflow > > > > > > > > workflow) > > > > > > > > - Reads more naturally in writing than all caps. > > > > > > > > - Counterpoint: Neither a class name nor a standard > word > > > > form, > > > > > so > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > can feel inconsistent > > > > > > > > 3. dag (lowercase) > > > > > > > > - Reads like a common noun in Airflow vocabulary > > > > > > > > - Matches Python identifiers (dag_id, dag.run_id) and > > > blends > > > > > > > cleanly > > > > > > > > into text > > > > > > > > - Counterpoint: Loses the visual link to the acronym > and > > > > class > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If anyone has other proposals, please add them here and I'll > > > > include > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > when the vote opens Monday. Please see the collapsed section > > for > > > > more > > > > > > > > details and background. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Constance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposed framing for the vote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Option A: Prefer dag in docs; use DAG only when > referring > > to > > > > the > > > > > > > > class/import > > > > > > > > - Option B: Prefer Dag in docs; use DAG only for the > > > > class/import > > > > > > > > - Option C: Keep DAG as the standard everywhere (status > quo) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Option with the most votes wins. You can vote between -1 to > +1 > > > for > > > > > any > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the three options, and everyone will be encouraged to vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary of viewpoints so far (AI- generated): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - "dag" — clean, user-friendly, Pythonic, avoids shouting > > the > > > > > > acronym > > > > > > > > - "DAG" — consistent with current APIs and historical > > context > > > > > > > > - "Dag" — middle ground; distinguishes the concept from > the > > > > > acronym > > > > > > > > while keeping it recognizable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Links: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/lktrzqkzrpvc1cyctxz7zxfmc0fwtq2j > > > > > > > > - > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/5fn1n188f99jspt627qhqsp2pznq545s > > > > > > > > - > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/q7zdogwb76jko3vwz7tlsnl2cn3h3vg9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
