Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

+1 (non-binding) Dynamic Task Mapping is a huge improvement! On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 11:34 AM Josh Fell wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Dynamic Task Mapping feels life-changing. > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 12:41 PM Abhishek Bhakat > wrote: > >> Other than that issue, have tested the version and

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

+1 (non-binding) Dynamic Task Mapping feels life-changing. On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 12:41 PM Abhishek Bhakat wrote: > Other than that issue, have tested the version and would like to change my > vote to +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 9:49 PM Elad Kalif wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >>

2022 Airflow User Survey Planning

Hi Folks! In 2019 and 2020 we did surveys to get a good sense of the state of the airflow community and to help guide future development. While we're still in the first half of 2022, I'm hoping to

Re: [DISCUSSION] AIP-49 OpenTelemetry Support for Apache Airflow

Got it. Will describe the changes that might be subjected to be done - however, please note that the changes were the things that I did on my own during the POC, so the final changes may obviously be different. On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 3:57 AM Elad Kalif wrote: > I'd prefer that the Code Changes

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

Other than that issue, have tested the version and would like to change my vote to +1 (non-binding) On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 9:49 PM Elad Kalif wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 6:34 PM Dennis Akpenyi > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Fri 29. Apr 2022 at 17:30, Brent

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

+1 (binding) On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 6:34 PM Dennis Akpenyi wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri 29. Apr 2022 at 17:30, Brent Bovenzi > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 11:13 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor >> wrote: >> >>> No, the same issue is fine. >>> >>> My point is that

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

+1 (non-binding) On Fri 29. Apr 2022 at 17:30, Brent Bovenzi wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 11:13 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > >> No, the same issue is fine. >> >> My point is that since this is no worse in 2.3.0rc2 than it was in 2.2.5 >> it shouldn't stop the release

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

+1 (non-binding) On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 11:13 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > No, the same issue is fine. > > My point is that since this is no worse in 2.3.0rc2 than it was in 2.2.5 > it shouldn't stop the release of 2.3.0. > > Cheers, > Ash > > On Fri, Apr 29 2022 at 20:28:49 +0530, Abhishek

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

No, the same issue is fine. My point is that since this is no worse in 2.3.0rc2 than it was in 2.2.5 it shouldn't stop the release of 2.3.0. Cheers, Ash On Fri, Apr 29 2022 at 20:28:49 +0530, Abhishek Bhakat wrote: I am facing this issue with 2.3.0rc2. I did make a comment on the same

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

I am facing this issue with 2.3.0rc2. I did make a comment on the same issue. Shall I create another issue for 2.3.0rc2 ? On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 8:20 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > Hi Abhishek, > > The issue you have linked to says the version that happens is in 2.2.5, so > since this isn't a

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

+1 (binding) Checked signatures, checksums, and licences.

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

Hi Abhishek, The issue you have linked to says the version that happens is in 2.2.5, so since this isn't a regression in 2.3 I'd ask if you could remove your -1 vote? On Fri, Apr 29 2022 at 20:13:31 +0530, Abhishek Bhakat wrote: -1 (non-binding) An issue with parsing dynamic tasks, causes

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

-1 (non-binding) An issue with parsing dynamic tasks, causes the scheduler to crash. https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/23361 On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 7:58 PM Collin McNulty wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Made and ran several test DAGs using mapped tasks. > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 3:54 AM

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

+1 (non-binding) Made and ran several test DAGs using mapped tasks. On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 3:54 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > +1 binding. > > On Wed, Apr 27 2022 at 21:50:48 +0100, Ephraim Anierobi < > ephraimanier...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hey fellow Airflowers, > > I have cut Airflow

Re: Implicit DAG registration

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 20:28, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > That looks like a nice improvement. I did some hacking and realized that for the time being, there's no good way to implement this as originally proposed. However, we can do something about the situation nonetheless. What we can do is to

Re: [DISCUSSION] AIP-49 OpenTelemetry Support for Apache Airflow

I'd prefer that the Code Changes section would be more detailed. This is a very important part. I'm not sure referring to a private repo is the way to do it but even if you should at least list the components which are subject to changes. You don't need to specify every change you are going to do

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

+1 binding. On Wed, Apr 27 2022 at 21:50:48 +0100, Ephraim Anierobi wrote: Hey fellow Airflowers, I have cut Airflow 2.3.0rc2. This email is calling a vote on the release, which will last for 72 hours, from Wednesday, April 27, 2022, at 08:48 pm UTC until Saturday, April 30, 2022, at 08:48

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

I'd say that's only a rarely used feature, and it only affects new mapped dags so no existing workflows will break. I expect us is to need a 2.3.1 in a week or so anyway (as we know not many people test the beta/RC - either at all or beyond a cursory test. Myself included usually) -ash On 29

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.3.0 from 2.3.0rc2

How should we handle https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/23339 ? Does it mean RC3 or maybe we should prepare 2.3.1 right after? On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:51 PM Ephraim Anierobi < ephraimanier...@apache.org> wrote: > Hey fellow Airflowers, > > I have cut Airflow 2.3.0rc2. This email is

Testing structure of your provider code

Hi, When I was working on AIP-47 (new design of system tests) I noticed that Google has tests for coverage of operators with examples. I revived it a bit to also work with new system tests, but I wasn't fully satisfied. I have decided to rewrite it so it can be easily reused by other providers. As