I dont think this makes sense and I dont that think anyone had a real issue with this. Execution date has been clearly documented and is part of the core principles of airflow. Renaming will create more confusion.
Please note that I do think that as an anonymous user you cannot speak for any "new airflow user". That is a contradiction to me. Thanks Bolke Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Sep 2018, at 07:59, airflowuser <airflowu...@protonmail.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > One of the most annoying, hard to understand and against all common sense is > the execution_date behavior. I assume that any new Airflow user has been > struggling with it. > The amount of questions with answers referring to : > https://airflow.apache.org/scheduler.html?scheduling-triggers is uncountable. > > Most people mistakenly think that execution_date is the datetime which the > DAG started to run. > > I suggest the following changes: > 1. Renaming the execution_date to something else like: run_stamped This > name won't cause people to get confused. > 2. Adding a new variable which indicated the actual datetime when the DAG run > was generated. call it execution_start_date. People seem to want the > information when the DAG actually started to be executed/run. > > This is only naming changes. No need to actual change the behavior - This > will only make things simpler as when user encounter run_stamped he won't > be confused by the name like execution_date
