+1 (non-binding) for this AIP.
I really like the concept and the efficiency improvements. The general
SmartSensor concept and the ability to add additional sensor classes is
elegant.
>From an implementation perspective, my one area of concern is the
"sharding" concept and the configuration / mana
Hello everyone!
This email calls for a vote to add the airflow smart sensor at
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5499
AIP:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-17%3A+Consolidate+and+de-duplicate+sensor+tasks+in+airflow+Smart+Sensor
Change summary:
- Add a new mode cal
Metacomment:
You might want to consider moving this discussion to a google doc or
something since it seems like a lot of divergent threads are being created
due to the scope of this change, which can be a bit hard to keep track of
in email. If folks are concerned about history we can dump the googl
Closing this vote after 48h as announced.
+5 (bindings) +2 (non-binding)
No negative votes or objections.
We will proceed with the current updated AIP. Thank you everyone!
Gerard Casas Saez
Twitter | Cortex | @casassaez
On Jun 18, 2020, 11:02 AM -0600, Jarek Potiuk , wrote:
> +1 (binding). I lik
Re-read this a couple times. Some thoughts:
• I agree on calling it event based scheduling, may be less misleading.
• I believe we can mostly all agree that this is something interesting to add
to Airflow and a use case that would be good to support. Nailing the details
and path to implement is
+1 (binding). I like where the functional DAG is going. :)
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:41 PM Xinbin Huang wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:36 AM Kamil Breguła
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 18:33 Dan Davydov
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> >
+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:36 AM Kamil Breguła
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 18:33 Dan Davydov
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > daniel.imber...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > vi
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 18:33 Dan Davydov
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM Daniel Imberman <
> daniel.imber...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > via Newton Mail [
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.50&pv=10.14.6&source=email_f
Hi Daniel
I agree that the TaskGroup should have the same API as a DAG object related
to task dependencies, but it will not have anything related to actual
execution or scheduling.
I will update the AIP according to this over the weekend.
> We could even make a “DAGTemplate” object s.t. when you
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM Daniel Imberman
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> via Newton Mail [
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.50&pv=10.14.6&source=email_footer_2
> ]
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:13 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek
> wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 20
+1 (binding)
via Newton Mail
[https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.50&pv=10.14.6&source=email_footer_2]
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:13 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek wrote:
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:39 AM 蒋晓峰 wrote:
> +1(not binding)
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:03 AM Gerard Cas
Hi Bin,
Why not give the TaskGroup the same API as a DAG object (e.g. the bitwise
operator fro task dependencies). We could even make a “DAGTemplate” object s.t.
when you import the object you can import it with parameters to determine the
shape of the DAG.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:54 PM, Xi
12 matches
Mail list logo
