Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.3 from 2.5.3rc1

-1 (non-binding) As mentioned on the status of testing issue, the default graph zoom level is quite annoying, personally I wouldn't upgrade to 2.5.3 if we keep it like that and would rather wait for 2.5.4, but +1 to fix it in 2.5.3rc2. From: Pierre Jeambrun Sent

AIP-56 Extensible user management

Hi all, I would like to get your feedback on an AIP I wrote: "Extensible user management". This AIP is a follow-up on a discussion we had in this email list on the multi tenancy topic. I decided to create a new email thread because I feel the topic had diverged a bit from the original topic (mu

Re: [VOTE] March PR of the Month

There are a lot of great PRs this month, my vote goes to 29413 that I find amazing. Le mar. 28 mars 2023 à 21:03, Ferruzzi, Dennis a écrit : > Having poked at the KubernetesPodOperator in the past and knowing what a > bear it is to work with, I'll throw my vote to 28336. > > > - ferruzzi > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.3 from 2.5.3rc1

*Indeed the milestone for that *issue* was wrong. Le mar. 28 mars 2023 à 21:02, Pierre Jeambrun a écrit : > Hello Jens, > > Indeed the milestone for that PR was wrong. Thanks Jarek for fixing that. > > I also updated milestones for similar issues that will not be fixed in > 2.5.3. > > A script t

Re: [VOTE] March PR of the Month

Having poked at the KubernetesPodOperator in the past and knowing what a bear it is to work with, I'll throw my vote to 28336. - ferruzzi From: John Thomas Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:04 AM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [VOTE] March PR o

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.3 from 2.5.3rc1

Hello Jens, Indeed the milestone for that PR was wrong. Thanks Jarek for fixing that. I also updated milestones for similar issues that will not be fixed in 2.5.3. A script to automatically detect such mis-labeled issues would be useful. Pierre Le mar. 28 mars 2023 à 07:39, Jarek Potiuk a écr

Re: [DISCUSS] Exclude some providers that hold us back from releasing

I don't have any issue with this in general, in fact I think it's not a bad idea to trim out older unused/unmaintained providers. But what are the criteria for marking a provider package as unmaintained? Is it simply "once a package becomes a blocker AND nobody has stepped up to fix it in [two

[VOTE] March PR of the Month

Hi All It's the last week of the month, and I'm preparing another newsletter. The PROTM Candidates from our script are below, but as always, feel free to nominate any PR you feel deserves it. * [28850] by @pankajastro: "Add deferrable mode in RedshiftPauseClusterOperator

Re: [DISCUSS] AIP-52 updates - setup / teardown tasks

Thank you everyone. My concerns have been addressed. I still think we should somehow advise users not to use this new trigger rule explicitly but that is something we can talk in the PR itself. בתאריך יום ג׳, 28 במרץ 2023, 09:17, מאת Jarek Potiuk ‏: > Maybe just `NukeOperator` simply :) > > On Tu

Re: [DISCUSS] Exclude some providers that hold us back from releasing

Yeah agreed. Each provider should be treated like a separate project/release - it's just that we batch up releases to save time of the release manager. -a On 28 March 2023 07:05:13 BST, Daniel Standish wrote: >It seems reasonable to me. > >On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 12:02 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: