Re: [Discuss] Improving AIP process documentation

Yes go for it On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 7:05 PM Gerard Casas Saez wrote: > Okay, then if noone objects before Monday 8AM MST, I'll assume lazy > consensus and bring the document text into the main CWiki page for AIP. > > Gerard Casas Saez > Twitter | Cortex | @casassaez

Re: [Discuss] Improving AIP process documentation

Okay, then if noone objects before Monday 8AM MST, I'll assume lazy consensus and bring the document text into the main CWiki page for AIP. Gerard Casas Saez Twitter | Cortex | @casassaez On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:21 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > LGTM > > On Thu, Aug

Re: [DISCUSS] Enable Github Discussions on Apache Airflow Github Repo

Why not users@ mailing list: * I personally don't currently subscribe to users@ because of email overload * I didn't subscribe to users@ for very long as a new users, because I felt that I could get better support elsewhere than from others on that list. Why not Slack: * I do visit Slack to try

Re: [DISCUSS] Enable Github Discussions on Apache Airflow Github Repo

*ASF Infra *has said the following: Note that github discussion are NOT to be used for anything other than user help. As is the policy of the Foundation, all code-related discussions and project management activities MUST be reflected to an ASF mailing list. What do you'll think now? I saw we kee

Re: Generic Transfer Operator

I like the approach as it itnroduces another interesting operators' interface standarization. It would be awesome to here more opinions :) Cheers, Tomek On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:10 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > I like the idea a lot. Similar things have been discussed before but the > proposal is I

Re: [Meeting Notes] Airflow 2.0 Dev Call #2 - 24 Aug 2020

+1 Kevin on the call :). On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:59 PM Kaxil Naik wrote: > Thanks Kevin, Looking forward to see you on the next call. > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 08:54 Kevin Yang wrote: > > > Thank you Kaxil, this is extremely helpful. We'll try to join at least > the > > next meeting trying

Re: [Discuss] Improving AIP process documentation

LGTM On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:09 AM Gerard Casas Saez wrote: > > Did a new pass to define what changes may be considered worth an AIP. > > Regarding GitHub issues, after seeing SIP-0 I quite liked it. Seems way > more lightweight and reduces issue of having to ask for permissions for it > to be

Re: Simplifying the KubernetesExecutor

Yep +1 for queue parameter. I had implemented once a POC for a multi-executor that also used 'queue' to route between any executors (and potentially multiple of them): * Main commit here: https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/commit/c87e87a5e7673e67e78d4ce39d5a15a8cc494e56 * fixup here: ht

Re: Simplifying the KubernetesExecutor

+1 for queue param On Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 04:38 Ping Zhang wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for checking that. I like the idea of using the queue field too. I > will make the change and tag you in the PR. > > Best wishes > > Ping Zhang > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:10 AM Daniel Imberman > > wro

Re: Move "Who uses Airflow?" (to Ecosystem? or new "users" page)?

Thanks Peter! That will be fantastic! I slept over it and I think this seems like a great direction we can take INTHEWILD.md with a long list of users and selected use-cases with logos, nicely formatted on our website. I have some very concrete proposal on how the Powered By/ Use case page might