Hii All,
Myself Darshan Kansagara, A final year M.Tech specialized in Computer
Science student from IIIT Hyderabad. I did my bachelor's degree in computer
science with Gold Medalist from the university.
I had past two internship experience, one was in Thomson Reuters where I
developed Dashboard wh
Hi everyone,
Sorry for leaving this unfinished. I was commenting an extension that Tomasz
suggested in the AIP doc, to add fields in the operator that serve as templated
args. This should be pretty easy to do if extending templated args. Not sure if
doing it extending templated_fields or add a
This vote has passed with 12 +1 votes and 0 -1 votes.
Yay!
Daniel has already started updating the PR template and checks :)
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7771/files
-ash
On Tue Mar 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM, Sid Anand wrote:
> (resending from my apache account .. sorry)
>
>
> +1 Binding
>
+1 (binding)
Solid work!
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:43 PM Jarek Potiuk
wrote:
> +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 th
I think we have similar understanding. But let me just clarify because I
think we think about we think about solving two different problems
My proposal is not solving all problems with dependencies - quite the
contrary, I want to solve just one specific "repeatability" problem - read
on :)..
1.
I think the "-pinned" version might have following
1. A potential source of confusion: using "-pinned" for installation but
using "non-pinned" for DAG development.
2. Most of the users would still try to install "apache-airflow" package
that might have been broken for example because
Agree Kaxil that requirements.txt is crucial. The requirements.txt is
already part of this change
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4938 (and it is essential to
the whole concept).
>From what I see no-one complains about requirements.txt (the nice
thing is that we will have it automatically u
-1 (binding) for the moment, sorry. This is mostly because of the proposed
permissions solution.
I am happy with the spec-first approach, and feel we can get there on
the exact API methods, what IDs we expose or don't etc, but this
permissions is a deal breaker for me as it stands.
>From your la
I think we can have a requirements.txt (freezed when the package is
released, similar to yarn.lock) instead of releasing a separate
apache-airflow-pinned package.
Regards,
Kaxil
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 7:38 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
> I think irrespective of what we do about releasing a pinne
+1 binding
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tomasz Urbaszek <
tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:29 AM Kamil Breguła
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > This email calls for a vote on the design proposed in AIP-32, found here
> >
> >
> >
> https://cwiki
+1 binding
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:29 AM Kamil Breguła
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This email calls for a vote on the design proposed in AIP-32, found here
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-32%3A+Airflow+REST+API
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r2a0d0fb3d46104
Hello all,
This email calls for a vote on the design proposed in AIP-32, found here
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-32%3A+Airflow+REST+API
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r2a0d0fb3d4610432fa52148d7d9e59c7632dd8f2fa61a580430b814c%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
A f
12 matches
Mail list logo
