+1 (binding)
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:16 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:06 PM Deng Xiaodong wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding).
> >
> > Thanks for proceeding this AIP, Ash.
> >
> >
> > XD
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 22:40 Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:06 PM Deng Xiaodong wrote:
> +1 (binding).
>
> Thanks for proceeding this AIP, Ash.
>
>
> XD
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 22:40 Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This email calls for a vote on the design proposed in AIP-15, found here
> >
> >
+1 (binding).
Thanks for proceeding this AIP, Ash.
XD
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 22:40 Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This email calls for a vote on the design proposed in AIP-15, found here
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=103092651
>
> A few notes
Hi all,
This email calls for a vote on the design proposed in AIP-15, found here
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=103092651
A few notes
- The proposed architecture is to use an active/active architecture
where each scheduler is fully capable
- Nothing in thi
(resending from my apache account .. sorry)
+1 Binding
Airflow's returning full-circle to Github issues after 4 years :-)
-s
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 2:12 PM Sid Anand wrote:
> +1 Binding
>
> Airflow's returning full-circle to Github issues after 4 years :-)
>
> -s
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 6
+1 Binding
Airflow's returning full-circle to Github issues after 4 years :-)
-s
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 6:48 AM Daniel Imberman
wrote:
> +1 Binding
>
> No point in having a whole extra site if we’re not using any of the JIRA
> specific features
>
> Daniel
> On Mar 16, 2020, 9:58 PM -0700, Sum
I think irrespective of what we do about releasing a pinned version, using this
approach so our prod image is repeatable sounds good!
On 17 March 2020 19:17:59 GMT, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>Any other comments?
>
>I'd love to hear your thoughts. It's the one thing that maybe not keeps
>me
>from prod
Any other comments?
I'd love to hear your thoughts. It's the one thing that maybe not keeps me
from prod image, But I would love to know if I can rely on the
requirements.txt being part of the source code so that I can use it
when building the prod image..
J.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:16 PM Ja
Thanks for that Michał I think those are very good points. And I would love what
others think about it. Here are my thoughts.
> I think the problem here is not the tool like Jira but the way we are using
> it.
Agreed. Good point. I think we have a chance to make a fresh start and
design the
proce
Everything else looks good to me, except for the idea of “lazy consensus.” I
think if you can’t get 3 binding +1’s that might mean there isn’t enough
interest around your idea.
Daniel
On Mar 17, 2020, 6:42 AM -0700, Kaxil Naik , wrote:
> What do you think about the other guidelines/questions?
>
+1 Binding
No point in having a whole extra site if we’re not using any of the JIRA
specific features
Daniel
On Mar 16, 2020, 9:58 PM -0700, Sumit Maheshwari ,
wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:44 PM Kevin Yang wrote:
>
> > +1 binding
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 9:34 AM Ta
What do you think about the other guidelines/questions?
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 1:37 PM Daniel Imberman
wrote:
> I agree with Jarek. All -1’s should be considered bur need to be qualified.
>
> Daniel
> On Mar 16, 2020, 4:35 AM -0700, Kaxil Naik , wrote:
> > Yes, I like the procedural issues one
I agree with Jarek. All -1’s should be considered bur need to be qualified.
Daniel
On Mar 16, 2020, 4:35 AM -0700, Kaxil Naik , wrote:
> Yes, I like the procedural issues one (that includes lazy consensus) too.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 11:31 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
> > (and BTW when we vote on
Hi Jarek,
Many thanks for your reply and sorry to have kept you waiting for mine.
> I think we might have a good help from someone who would like to take on
> the tasks that developers are not really good at. I think we - developers
> are good in stuff that came be automated, but we are not that
I don't think that "conflict" isn't strictly a problem, the second (or
n-th) scheduler that tries to work on the locked dag will simply move on
to the next one.
Looking at "fast-follow"/moving some of the scheduling decisions to the
workers is already on my todo list, but the other thing to consid
15 matches
Mail list logo
