Cool! Glad it worked out.
And here is a complete set of images for 2.3.0 on my personal account to
see the end result of it :
https://hub.docker.com/repository/docker/potiuk/airflow/tags?page=1=last_updated
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 11:00 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> Following the discussion
>
And a general point about UI changes: https://xkcd.com/1172/ :D
Oh yeah. Very apt one :)
J.
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:25 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
> In terms of notice of the upcoming release, we had 2.3.0b1 announced on
> this list on 15th April.
>
> But your underlying point remains that
In terms of notice of the upcoming release, we had 2.3.0b1 announced on
this list on 15th April.
But your underlying point remains that it is hard/impossible for
everyone to notice all changes (even those of us fortunate enough to be
working on Airflow fulltime!) so nothing is every going to
Yeah. I think we should be a bit more "explicit" in communicating auch huge
changes in the UI. Good learning for all of us I think.
And yeah - breaking habits of people is one of the most difficult things in
technology. Following your analogy - I'd never, ever, buy the Mac Pro if
not for the
There's been some prior discussion on removing the requirement for a
DAG without a schedule:
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-3739
- https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5423
But why actually have the requirement at all.
The documentation isn't particularly clear on why we need
Thanks Jarek, it's very good learning for me
hearing very different feelings about things in Airflow. Our divergence may
come a lot from that.
1. We don't feel that strongly against the tree view (or we just got
used to it). This may be because of how we use Airflow--we still use
Airflow
Hey All,
Following the discussion
https://lists.apache.org/thread/g2jp5s9cqgwhltz7wd3gkxb7vnnkrp5n, I am
calling for a lazy consensus on releasing "slim" images of Airflow in
DockerHub additionally to "regular" ones.
If there are no objections till Monday 9th, 11.00 am CEST, I will merge the
PR
The PR updated - I think that solves the main problem I had with the
ballooning number of images :). I guess with adding just one parallel
"slim" image to already existing images is far less controversial so I will
call for a lazy consensus :)
Thanks Jed It's quite obvious when you mentioned it,
Yeah. Indeed it's almost no difference, that will simplify things a lot.
Good Idea Jed. I will update the PR to reflect it :)
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 10:17 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Good point. Let me try :)
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:57 AM Jed Cunningham
> wrote:
>
>> How much bigger would
Good point. Let me try :)
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:57 AM Jed Cunningham
wrote:
> How much bigger would the image be if we included postgres, mysql, and
> mssql in the same image? That'd mean we'd have 4 vs 12 (ignoring the
> platform piece), and might be worth the tradeoff.
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
