+1 binding
Checked reproducibility, SVN, licences and signatures

On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 at 15:10, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Still waiting :(
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:27 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > One more binding vote would be cool :)
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 10:40 PM Buğra Öztürk <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Jens! Exactly, we have issues (will have sub-issues to handle
> > > multiple use cases) to address these and evolve airflowctl until 1.0.
> We
> > > may have even more.
> > >
> > > To make it visible if anyone wants to follow up :)  We will approach in
> > two
> > > categories. Improve validation and better user-friendly errors and help
> > > text, rather than API responses and robotic help text, and console
> > outputs.
> > > First is to add generic validation, such as asking for required fields
> or
> > > type checks and warn users accordingly [1]. We will make some
> parameters
> > > path parameters according to Pydantic fields, meaning they will be
> called
> > > `airflowctl <command> --param=value`, and they will be `airflowctl
> > > <command> <value>`. This will include another proper validation and
> error
> > > handling for path parameters [2]. On the other hand, we will integrate
> > > auto-generated commands to be able to add proper help texts and inject
> > > custom error messages simply updating configuration files [3] [4].
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/57633
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/57634
> > > [3] https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/57632
> > > [4] https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/57721
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the process improvements, Jarek!
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 7:08 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just found the minor diff that locally the source package was named
> > > > > apache_airflow_ctl-0.1.0rc2-source.tar.gz and SVN had it named
> > > > > apache_airflow_ctl-0.1.0-source.tar.gz but besides the "rc2" name,
> > the
> > > > > files had the same content except there is rc2 in the source folder
> > of
> > > > > the TAR when expanding. Not blocking release in my view
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Not blocking indeed, but I think it also might be an artifact of us
> > pushing
> > > > the tag twice and lack of proper reproducibility instructions. You
> > likely
> > > > used locally the tag that Bugra pushed first. I then re-pushed it.
> > Also I
> > > > noticed that "prepare tarball" step was missing in the
> reproducibility
> > > > check. Previously (before my last fixes from Friday) the tarballs
> were
> > > > automatically prepared when --tag was used with:
> > > >
> > > > breeze release-management prepare-airflow-ctl-distributions
> > > >
> > > > You could see it when you run `git fetch apache --tags`. When I did
> it
> > now
> > > > on another machine I got this:
> > > >
> > > >  ! [rejected]              airflow-ctl/1.0.0rc2      ->
> > > > airflow-ctl/1.0.0rc2  (would clobber existing tag)
> > > >  ! [rejected]              constraints-3.1.2         ->
> > constraints-3.1.2
> > > >  (would clobber existing tag)
> > > >  ! [rejected]              constraints-latest        ->
> > constraints-latest
> > > >  (would clobber existing tag)
> > > >
> > > > Now it needs a separate step (and this step is now properly
> > implemented -
> > > > i.e. it uses both VERSION_RC an VERSION - VERSION_RC is used to
> > checkout
> > > > the right tag, where VERSION is used to build the source tarball (we
> > should
> > > > never have -rcN suffix in source tarball - it's always considered as
> > ready
> > > > to be promoted to "final" without renaming or rebuilding.
> > > >
> > > > I added a PR that fixes the instructions, and adds `--force` flag to
> > get
> > > > the local old tag overwritten by the new one pushed with --force
> > (which I
> > > > did).
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/58077
> > > >
> > > > Once you follow instructions from this PR - you should get
> reproducible
> > > > tarball (I did).
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bugra Ozturk
> >
>

Reply via email to