Though - there were quite a lot of comments from Kaxil, Tatiana, Jason, and myself, I think there was a convergence and I do not think any major issues remain.
Maybe Kaxil and Tatiana can chime in here. Perhaps starting a DISCUSS thread and explicitly calling for the people who chimed-in before to confirm the convergence + anyone else who might want to contribute, would be a good idea. And yes the VOTE thread here should be cancelled to avoid confusion. J. On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 1:42 PM Elad Kalif <[email protected]> wrote: > This thread doesn't show confidence there will be enough +1 votes and to my > understanding there was supposed to be also a chat in dev call around this > AIP which didn't happen eventually. > The fact that people didn't comment back after raising some > initial question does not mean they will give +1. > Dilnaz this is your call how you want to move forward. I recommend revoking > this vote thread and starting a discussion thread. > Voting thread is **not** a call for opinions and thoughts. I only joined > this thread because I was curious to see why it was not concluded. Some > other members of the community might not be aware that the discussion is > still in fact open. Raising a discussion thread is how we call for the > community to be engaged. a voting thread does not serve that purpose. > again, you call. > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 1:52 PM Dilnaz Amanzholova via dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Jarek, > > > > Thanks for the feedback. With your comments addressed and if there are no > > further objections, I will move AIP-85 to the voting phase tomorrow. > > > > Kind regards, > > Dilnaz Amanzholova > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 8:32 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > From my point of view - i think all my comments are really addressed - > > > there is an impact to security model, but this is something that can be > > > addressed as part of implementation, so from my point of view starting > a > > > vote in new thread seems like a good idea. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 1:24 PM Dilnaz Amanzholova via dev < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Elad, > > >> > > >> Thank you for the suggestion. I will mark this thread as an additional > > >> discussion thread on the Confluence page. Once we address the final > > points > > >> and are ready, I will open a new, separate thread to restart the > > official > > >> vote. > > >> > > >> Given that most of the major comments have already been addressed, I > > hope > > >> we are close to the finish line and can restart the vote soon. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> Dilnaz Amanzholova > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 9:20 PM Elad Kalif <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > I'd like to suggest revoking this vote thread and start a new > > discussion > > >> > thread to open up the discussion around the AIP. > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 2:35 AM Zhe-You(Jason) Liu < > > [email protected] > > >> > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Dilnaz, > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks for your continued work refining the proposal. I'm looking > > >> forward > > >> > > to the DagImporter serving as the interface for processing native > > DAG > > >> > > definitions for Lang-SDK (Java, Go, and the upcoming TypeScript). > > >> > > > > >> > > I have one final question about the DagImporter interface. I left > a > > >> > comment > > >> > > on the Confluence doc yesterday, but I'm raising it here as well > for > > >> > > visibility. > > >> > > > > >> > > Would it make sense to collapse supported_extensions() and > > >> can_handle() > > >> > > into list_dag_files()? > > >> > > > > >> > > Extension matching alone seems insufficient: for normal Python > DAGs, > > >> not > > >> > > all Python files are DAG files, and it's similar for the Java-SDK > -- > > >> not > > >> > > all JARs are valid Java-SDK entrypoint files. > > >> > > IIUC, list_dag_files() should be the single entrypoint that yields > > the > > >> > > valid DAG files for further processing. Since the files it yields > > >> should > > >> > be > > >> > > valid anyway, I don't think we'd need can_handle() as a separate > > >> public > > >> > > interface. > > >> > > > > >> > > Happy to hear your thoughts on whether this makes sense, or if > > >> there's a > > >> > > reason to keep them separate that I'm missing. > > >> > > Thanks! > > >> > > > > >> > > Best regards, > > >> > > Jason > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 11:31 PM Dilnaz Amanzholova via dev < > > >> > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi @Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> and > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/df3f0z7l29nr9t5g2pvgxzpqvq74bv2w?content_ref=a+global+extension+importer+map+structurally+can+t+give+two+bundles+different+importers+for+the+same+extension+so+as+it+stands+the+foundation+can+t+support+the+resolution+model+the+aip+promises > > >> > > > >@Tatiana > > >> > > > Al-Chueyr <[email protected]> , > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thank you so much for the detailed review and for supporting the > > >> > > > scoped-down direction. I completely agree with your structural > > >> concerns > > >> > > > regarding the merged foundation in PR #60127. Reconciling the > > >> intended > > >> > > > design in the AIP with what currently exists in main is > definitely > > >> the > > >> > > > right move before calling for a VOTE again. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Here is how I am addressing your points, many of which align > with > > >> > recent > > >> > > > inline discussions on the AIP page: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1. Registry scope: You are right that a global extension -> > > importer > > >> > map > > >> > > > structurally cannot support the per-bundle resolution we need. > > >> Tatiana > > >> > > also > > >> > > > brought this up in the inline comments. The intended end-state > is > > >> > indeed > > >> > > > per-bundle instantiation with a strict bundle -> global -> > default > > >> > > > resolution > > >> > > > order. I will refactor the DagImporterRegistry out of the > > singleton > > >> > > pattern > > >> > > > to ensure the interface supports this scope. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 2. *Archive* handling: I think we are aligned on using a > composite > > >> > > > ZipImporter. The AIP describes a generic archive importer that > > >> > delegates > > >> > > to > > >> > > > internal-format importers, which provides the flexibility needed > > for > > >> > > > mixed-content archives (e.g., YAML and Python in the same zip). > I > > >> will > > >> > > > ensure the merged PythonDagImporter is updated to hand-over its > > >> > > > hard-ownership of .zip files. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 3. Cross-file dependency tracking: Tatiana also raised the > > staleness > > >> > bug > > >> > > > issue for shared configurations like defaults.yaml. > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/df3f0z7l29nr9t5g2pvgxzpqvq74bv2w?content_ref=without+importer+declared+dependencies+a+change+to+a+shared+file+won+t+re+parse+its+dependents+a+staleness+bug > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I > > >> > > > have updated the DagImportResult dataclass in the AIP to > include a > > >> > > > file_dependencies: > > >> > > > list[str] field. To clarify the interaction with the DAG > > Processor: > > >> the > > >> > > > custom importer will declare these dependencies, and the core > DAG > > >> > > Processor > > >> > > > will cache them to monitor for modification time changes, > > >> triggering a > > >> > > > re-parse and a new DAG version when necessary (keeping the > > importers > > >> > > > stateless). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 4. Security: This is a good point and something I hadn't > > explicitly > > >> > > defined > > >> > > > yet. Ensuring users don't treat YAML as a "review-free" data > > >> payload is > > >> > > > critical since resolving operators by classpath has the same > power > > >> as > > >> > > > arbitrary Python. > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/df3f0z7l29nr9t5g2pvgxzpqvq74bv2w?content_ref=explicitly+that+a+declarative+dag+file+is+fully+code+equivalent+trust+a+yaml+importer+resolving+operators+by+classpath+has+the+same+power+as+arbitrary+python > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I > > >> > > > would love to take you up on your offer to help fill in these > > >> security > > >> > > > blanks! I will add a dedicated "Security and Trust Model" > section > > to > > >> > the > > >> > > > AIP for the constraints you mentioned, feel free to modify it. > > >> > Overall, I > > >> > > > would like to learn more about this if you don't mind, as this > is > > my > > >> > > first > > >> > > > Airflow community contribution and it would be great to fill in > > the > > >> > > > knowledge blanks. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 5. Safe mode: Yes, the "airflow + dag" string check is strictly > > >> > > > Python-specific and will fail for YAML. > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/df3f0z7l29nr9t5g2pvgxzpqvq74bv2w?content_ref=heuristic+file+contains+the+strings+airflow+dag+currently+lives+in+the+abstract+list_dag_files+but+it+s+python+specific+and+will+mis+handle+yaml+it+should+be+delegated+per+importer > > >> > > > >The > > >> > > > design on the AIP now clarifies that the safe_mode heuristic is > > >> > delegated > > >> > > > to individual importers by overriding the can_handle() method, > > >> allowing > > >> > > > each format to define its own fast content-level checks. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 6. Performance regression: I have added a section to the AIP's > > >> > > > "Considerations" to include performance testing. This will > include > > >> > > > benchmarking basic, large-volume .py workloads to ensure the new > > >> > registry > > >> > > > indirection adds no measurable regression, > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/df3f0z7l29nr9t5g2pvgxzpqvq74bv2w?content_ref=it+d+be+good+to+confirm+the+registry+indirection+adds+no+measurable+regression+on+the+plain+py+path+some+performance+tests+with+basic+big+numbers+of+dags+scenarios+would+be+great+to+do+as+part+of+the+implementation > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > alongside > > >> > > > comparative benchmarks of native YAML vs. legacy generator > > patterns > > >> > > (e.g., > > >> > > > dag-factory). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > How should we proceed with the discussion logistics? I can > either > > >> copy > > >> > > the > > >> > > > relevant points from this thread over to the main [DISCUSS] > > thread, > > >> or > > >> > > > simply link this thread there as another reference. Once the > > >> feedback > > >> > is > > >> > > > incorporated and the AIP is ready to transition back to the > voting > > >> > > phase, I > > >> > > > can then open a new thread, perhaps titled [FINAL VOTE]. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Let me know on your thoughts on this as I don't have strong > > >> preference. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Kind regards, > > >> > > > Dilnaz Amanzholova > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 3:42 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 100% on what Tatiana wrote :D > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 3:06 PM Tatiana Al-Chueyr Martins < > > >> > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> Thanks a lot for being so responsive to the feedback on the > AIP > > >> > > > Confluent > > >> > > > >> page, Dilnaz. Since yesterday, you've added file_dependencies > > to > > >> > > > >> DagImportResult, introduced a DagSource class that carries > the > > >> > source > > >> > > > >> language for the Code tab, and made the importer precedence > > order > > >> > > > explicit > > >> > > > >> (bundle explicit mapping > global config > defaults) - all > > great > > >> > > > >> improvements. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> I agree with Jarek on reconciling the merged foundation with > > the > > >> AIP > > >> > > > >> (particularly the per-bundle registry) before re-running the > > >> vote. > > >> > And > > >> > > > >> yeah, explicitly stating that a declarative DAG file carries > > the > > >> > same > > >> > > > >> trust > > >> > > > >> level as the Python code is important - in our experience, > > users > > >> > often > > >> > > > >> think YAML is just data, so we should make this explicit. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> On the zip question, composite importers feel like the right > > path > > >> > > > forward. > > >> > > > >> Once we get non-Python formats treated as first-class > citizens, > > >> it > > >> > > feels > > >> > > > >> like the next natural step is mixed content. Delegating to > > inner > > >> > > > importers > > >> > > > >> handles that cleanly, whereas I feel that extending > > >> > PythonDagImporter > > >> > > > >> wouldn't scale as well. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> It does feel we should wrap up the bigger questions in > > [DISCUSS] > > >> - > > >> > > this > > >> > > > >> will allow maintainers to VOTE on the proposed design with > > >> > confidence, > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > >> the AIP will be stronger with it. With the pace I've observed > > >> since > > >> > > > >> yesterday, it doesn't feel like we're far off - looking > forward > > >> to > > >> > > > seeing > > >> > > > >> it back into VOTE. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> Kind regards, > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> Tatiana > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 at 13:24, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Hi Dilnaz, and indeed - thanks for pushing this forward. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > The scoped-down "DAG importer" framing is much clearer, and > > >> > > > >> > native non-Python DAGs are a genuinely good direction. +1 > on > > >> the > > >> > > goal. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > I am happy to make comments and suggestions or even fill-in > > >> some > > >> > > > blanks > > >> > > > >> > (security especially) in the AIP proposal if you are fine > > with > > >> me > > >> > > > doing > > >> > > > >> it > > >> > > > >> > - see > > >> > > > >> > some of the comments below. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Before I can vote on the design, I'd like to raise one > > >> structural > > >> > > > >> concern > > >> > > > >> > plus a couple of smaller ones. My main point is that the > > >> > foundation > > >> > > > >> already > > >> > > > >> > merged in https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/60127 > > >> > > > >> > contradicts the design the AIP describes, and I think we > > >> > > > >> > should reconcile the two before the vote closes rather than > > >> after. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Some of these points are already explicitly stated, either > in > > >> the > > >> > > AIP > > >> > > > or > > >> > > > >> > opened > > >> > > > >> > questions raised by Tatiana - I just want to reiterate them > > >> here > > >> > and > > >> > > > >> see if > > >> > > > >> > we can > > >> > > > >> > reach consensus on the shape of those changes. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Concretely, in > > >> airflow-core/src/airflow/dag_processing/importers/: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 1. Registry scope — global singleton vs. per-bundle. The > AIP > > >> > > describes > > >> > > > >> > per-bundle importer mapping with a bundle -> global -> > > default > > >> > > > >> resolution > > >> > > > >> > order (and Tatiana's Q4/Q7 ask for the same). But the > merged > > >> > > > >> > DagImporterRegistry is a process-wide singleton keyed by > > >> > extension, > > >> > > > >> "last > > >> > > > >> > registered wins, one importer per extension." A global > > >> > > > >> extension->importer > > >> > > > >> > map structurally can't give two bundles different importers > > for > > >> > the > > >> > > > same > > >> > > > >> > extension, so as it stands the foundation can't support the > > >> > > resolution > > >> > > > >> > model the AIP promises. If per-bundle is the intended end > > >> state, I > > >> > > > >> think we > > >> > > > >> > want that in the interface now, because swapping a > singleton > > >> out > > >> > > later > > >> > > > >> is > > >> > > > >> > expensive. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 2. Zip handling. The AIP describes a generic ZipImporter > that > > >> > > > delegates > > >> > > > >> to > > >> > > > >> > inner-format importers. The merged PythonDagImporter > instead > > >> > > hard-owns > > >> > > > >> both > > >> > > > >> > .py and .zip, with a docstring saying YAML-in-zip would > > require > > >> > > > >> extending > > >> > > > >> > it > > >> > > > >> > or writing a composite importer — the opposite of the > AIP. I > > >> > think > > >> > > we > > >> > > > >> > should > > >> > > > >> > decide on one or the other direction, I like the composite > > >> > importer > > >> > > > >> more - > > >> > > > >> > even > > >> > > > >> > if it is more complex, it allows for greater flexibility if > > we > > >> > have > > >> > > > >> > composite > > >> > > > >> > importers. But I would love to hear what others think. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 3. DagImportResult.file_dependencies is in the AIP > dataclass > > >> but > > >> > not > > >> > > > in > > >> > > > >> the > > >> > > > >> > merged one — and this is more than cosmetic. Declarative > DAGs > > >> > > > routinely > > >> > > > >> > share a defaults.yaml; the DFP decides what to re-parse > from > > >> > > per-file > > >> > > > >> > mtime, > > >> > > > >> > so without importer-declared dependencies a change to a > > shared > > >> > file > > >> > > > >> won't > > >> > > > >> > re-parse its dependents (a staleness bug). This is > Tatiana's > > >> Q5, > > >> > and > > >> > > > I'd > > >> > > > >> > treat it as a correctness requirement, not a nice-to-have. > > >> Worth > > >> > > > >> spelling > > >> > > > >> > out how it interacts with AIP-66's git-sha bundle > versioning > > >> too. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On security, I'd like the AIP to state explicitly that a > > >> > declarative > > >> > > > DAG > > >> > > > >> > file is fully code-equivalent trust: a YAML importer > > resolving > > >> > > > >> operators by > > >> > > > >> > classpath has the same power as arbitrary Python. People > tend > > >> to > > >> > > treat > > >> > > > >> YAML > > >> > > > >> > as "data" and .py as "code," and I want to make sure nobody > > >> > builds a > > >> > > > >> > "review-free YAML bundle" path on the back of this. I'd > also > > >> like > > >> > it > > >> > > > >> stated > > >> > > > >> > as a hard constraint that importers run only in the DAG > > >> processor, > > >> > > > >> > in-process, under the same parse timeout, and never touch > the > > >> > > metadata > > >> > > > >> DB — > > >> > > > >> > consistent with the AIP-66/AIP-72 boundary. And a quick > > >> > confirmation > > >> > > > >> that > > >> > > > >> > the old "push DAGs over API / ingester" idea stays out of > > >> scope, > > >> > > since > > >> > > > >> that > > >> > > > >> > one genuinely changes the threat model. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Again, for security, if you are happy with it, I would love > > to > > >> be > > >> > > able > > >> > > > >> to > > >> > > > >> > fill > > >> > > > >> > all those security blanks - this can be described on high > > >> level in > > >> > > the > > >> > > > >> AIP, > > >> > > > >> > and when implementation progresses, it would turn into > > security > > >> > > model > > >> > > > >> > updates (I'm also happy to help there). > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Two smaller things: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > - The safe_mode/might_contain_dag heuristic ("file contains > > the > > >> > > > strings > > >> > > > >> > airflow + dag") currently lives in the abstract > > list_dag_files, > > >> > but > > >> > > > it's > > >> > > > >> > Python-specific and will mis-handle YAML — it should be > > >> delegated > > >> > > > >> > per-importer (Tatiana's Q3). > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > - It'd be good to confirm the registry indirection adds no > > >> > > measurable > > >> > > > >> > regression on the plain .py path - some performance tests > > with > > >> > basic > > >> > > > >> > big-numbers-of-dags scenarios would be great to do as part > of > > >> the > > >> > > > >> > implementation. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > None of this is a blocker on the idea — I'm supportive. But > > >> given > > >> > > the > > >> > > > >> open > > >> > > > >> > design questions and that the vote has been quiet, It > > >> reaffirms we > > >> > > > treat > > >> > > > >> > this > > >> > > > >> > as still in [DISCUSS], reconcile the AIP with the merged > > >> > foundation > > >> > > > >> > (especially point 1), and re-run the vote once the > interface > > >> > > reflects > > >> > > > >> the > > >> > > > >> > intended end state. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Happy to help review the per-bundle registry shape. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Best, > > >> > > > >> > Jarek > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 4:45 PM Tatiana Al-Chueyr Martins < > > >> > > > >> > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Dilnaz, > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks a lot for pushing this forward, and for the > updates > > >> after > > >> > > the > > >> > > > >> > > earlier feedback - AIP 85 looks much clearer than before. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > I'm one of the maintainers of DAG Factory ( > > >> > > > >> > > https://github.com/astronomer/dag-factory), and I like > the > > >> > > > direction > > >> > > > >> the > > >> > > > >> > > AIP is taking. I agree with the pain points Igor raised > > >> earlier; > > >> > > it > > >> > > > >> would > > >> > > > >> > > be great to support non-Python DAGs natively in Airflow, > > >> rather > > >> > > than > > >> > > > >> > > converting them as we currently do in DAG Factory. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > I've reviewed the AIP page and left some inline comments > & > > >> > > > questions. > > >> > > > >> > Since > > >> > > > >> > > the authors are already responding on the AIP page, happy > > to > > >> > > > continue > > >> > > > >> the > > >> > > > >> > > detailed discussion there - sharing the summary here > mainly > > >> for > > >> > > > >> > visibility: > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > 1. *Location of schemas and importers*: Where do we see > the > > >> > > schemas > > >> > > > >> and > > >> > > > >> > > actual importers defined - and how do we plan to govern > > them? > > >> > It > > >> > > > >> would > > >> > > > >> > be > > >> > > > >> > > important to align, for instance, on how non-primitive > > >> operator > > >> > > > >> arguments > > >> > > > >> > > should be defined in YAML (e.g., Asset, V1Pod, arbitrary > > >> > classes) > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > >> on > > >> > > > >> > > the security aspects of loading arbitrary classes from > > YAML. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > 2. *Validation contract*: If users define unknown or > > >> unsupported > > >> > > > keys > > >> > > > >> and > > >> > > > >> > > configurations, should we fail loudly with > DagImportErrors > > >> > > > referencing > > >> > > > >> > > files/lines like the Python DAG import errors? It would > be > > >> great > > >> > > if > > >> > > > we > > >> > > > >> > > didn't just skip them. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > 3.* Decision on which files to parse: *As raised by TP on > > >> > > > >> > > < > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K6-4cGoZItXGQHZjOydNbc7rGtOp_XKfFurMnFptKe0/edit?disco=AAAB8ofIMRo > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > the > > >> > > > >> > > Google > > >> > > > >> > > < > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K6-4cGoZItXGQHZjOydNbc7rGtOp_XKfFurMnFptKe0/edit?disco=AAAB8ofIMRo > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Doc > > >> > > > >> > > < > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K6-4cGoZItXGQHZjOydNbc7rGtOp_XKfFurMnFptKe0/edit?disco=AAAB8ofIMRo > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > , I feel that we should have additional criteria to > decide > > >> which > > >> > > > >> files to > > >> > > > >> > > treat as a DAG - and not rely only on the file extension. > > As > > >> an > > >> > > > >> example, > > >> > > > >> > > bundles normally have non-DAG YAML - dbt_project.yml, CI > > >> > configs, > > >> > > > K8s > > >> > > > >> > > manifests. Would it make sense to have something similar > to > > >> the > > >> > > > Python > > >> > > > >> > > content-level heuristic ("airflow + dag" string check)? > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > 4. *Different importers for the same file extension*: > > >> Can/should > > >> > > we > > >> > > > >> > support > > >> > > > >> > > different importers for the same file extension? It would > > be > > >> > great > > >> > > > if > > >> > > > >> the > > >> > > > >> > > architecture could support overriding the importer per > > file. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > 5.* Cross-file dependency tracking:* Declarative DAGs are > > >> rarely > > >> > > > >> > > single-file. They can share default definitions, for > > example: > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > https://astronomer.github.io/dag-factory/1.1.0/configuration/defaults/. > > >> > > > >> > > Could importers declare file dependencies in > > >> DagImportResult, so > > >> > > the > > >> > > > >> > > processor can use them? > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > 6. *Code tab UI*: On get_source_code(), could we have a > > >> > parameter > > >> > > > >> related > > >> > > > >> > > to the file language, which could be used by the Code tab > > >> (it is > > >> > > > >> > currently > > >> > > > >> > > hard-coded with Python)? How are we planning to resolve > > >> > > ZipImporter > > >> > > > >> and > > >> > > > >> > > other transformed sources in the UI? > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > 7. *Precedence*: What should be the precedence > (per-bundle > > vs > > >> > > global > > >> > > > >> vs > > >> > > > >> > > default importers)? > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > For the performance questions raised earlier in the > thread, > > >> we > > >> > > could > > >> > > > >> use > > >> > > > >> > > DAG Factory workloads as a baseline, comparing the > > >> > > > >> non-built-in-Airflow > > >> > > > >> > > Python layer against a native YAML importer. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Our team is very keen to contribute to the YAML contract > > >> > > definition. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Kind regards, > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Tatiana > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 13:48, Dilnaz Amanzholova via dev < > > >> > > > >> > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Hi all, I am following up to request your feedback on > > >> AIP-85: > > >> > > DAG > > >> > > > >> > > importer. > > >> > > > >> > > > I attempted to present this at the last Airflow dev > call, > > >> but > > >> > > the > > >> > > > >> > agenda > > >> > > > >> > > > was full, and today’s meeting was unfortunately > > cancelled. > > >> As > > >> > it > > >> > > > has > > >> > > > >> > been > > >> > > > >> > > > some time since this AIP was submitted for review, I > > would > > >> > > greatly > > >> > > > >> > > > appreciate it if you could share your thoughts or any > > >> > remaining > > >> > > > >> > concerns > > >> > > > >> > > > here. I understand there are many active discussions, > but > > >> your > > >> > > > input > > >> > > > >> > > would > > >> > > > >> > > > be invaluable in helping move this proposal forward. > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > > Dilnaz > > >> > > > >> > > > Amanzholova > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 2:08 PM Dilnaz Amanzholova < > > >> > > > >> [email protected] > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Hey Kaxil, > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the clarification. I have decided to > attend, > > >> as > > >> > the > > >> > > > >> next > > >> > > > >> > > > > meeting is not for another two weeks. I have added > the > > >> AIP > > >> > to > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > >> > > agenda. > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Best regards, > > >> > > > >> > > > > Dilnaz Amanzholova > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 6:37 PM Kaxil Naik < > > >> > > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Hey not required at all. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> This is just in case you wanted to solicit feedback > > >> live on > > >> > > the > > >> > > > >> call > > >> > > > >> > > > with > > >> > > > >> > > > >> other Airflow devs. Sometimes it is easier that way > -- > > >> but > > >> > > not > > >> > > > >> > > > mandatory. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> More details on the dev calls: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+Dev+Call > > >> > > > >> > > if > > >> > > > >> > > > >> you decide about presenting it next time. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Kaxil > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 at 17:32, Dilnaz Amanzholova < > > >> > > > >> > [email protected]> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Kaxil, > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> I was not aware there was a regular call. Is it > > >> required > > >> > to > > >> > > > >> present > > >> > > > >> > > the > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> AIP before voting? > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Kind regards, > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Dilnaz Amanzholova > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 6:26 PM Kaxil Naik < > > >> > > > [email protected] > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> Hi @dilnaz -- Are you up for presenting it > tomorrow > > >> or on > > >> > > the > > >> > > > >> next > > >> > > > >> > > dev > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> call? > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 at 15:15, Dilnaz Amanzholova > via > > >> dev > > >> > < > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> Hi all, > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> I am following up on AIP-85: DAG importer. All > > >> previous > > >> > > > >> concerns > > >> > > > >> > > have > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> been > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> addressed, and the content has been updated on > the > > >> AIP > > >> > > > >> Confluence > > >> > > > >> > > > page. > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> Please review the latest updates at your earliest > > >> > > > >> convenience. I > > >> > > > >> > > > would > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> appreciate your feedback and am available to > answer > > >> any > > >> > > > >> further > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> questions > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> you may have. > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> Best regards, > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> Dilnaz Amanzholova > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 1:23 PM Dilnaz > Amanzholova < > > >> > > > >> > > > [email protected]> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > Hi all, > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > I’m calling vote on AIP-85: DAG importer > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/_Q7OEg > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > You can also review the design document here > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > < > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K6-4cGoZItXGQHZjOydNbc7rGtOp_XKfFurMnFptKe0/edit?tab=t.0 > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > . > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > Current discussion thread (after scoping down): > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/wtfog0qjrf3oh7355db0x6mqk3o7l2dt > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > Original discussion thread (with wider > > "extendable > > >> DAG > > >> > > > >> parsing > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> controls" > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > title): > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > >> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/bn0oo47j48xh8r335gd2jrrjz0o7vnjl > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > The vote will run for 5 days, closing on > > Wednesday, > > >> > 10th > > >> > > > >> June > > >> > > > >> > > 2026, > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> at > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > 10:00 UTC. > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > Everyone is encouraged to vote, but only PMC > > >> members > > >> > and > > >> > > > >> > > > Committers' > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> votes > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > are considered binding. Please vote > accordingly. > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > [ ] +1 Approve > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > [ ] +0 no opinion > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > Kind regards, > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > Dilnaz Amanzholova > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > > >> > > Tatiana Al-Chueyr > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> -- > > >> > > > >> Tatiana Al-Chueyr > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
