Re: Lazy Consensus - Removing the Experimental tag for Pluggy

Oh! Yes I agree > and has been since it’s release in 2.6 Misunderstood. Thought it was only released a few months ago. Time flies! +1 (non-binding) > On Sep 8, 2023, at 3:44 PM, Hussein Awala wrote: > >  >> >> What’s the motivation to remove this now? > > The feature was introduced in Ai

Re: Lazy Consensus - Removing the Experimental tag for Pluggy

> What’s the motivation to remove this now? The feature was introduced in Airflow 2.3.0 (1 year and five months ago); IMHO, this period is more than sufficient to apply all possible changes to the design or decide to remove the feature. On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 9:30 PM wrote: > What’s the motivat

Re: Lazy Consensus - Removing the Experimental tag for Pluggy

What’s the motivation to remove this now? > On Sep 8, 2023, at 2:55 AM, Cody Rich wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > I'm calling a lazy consensus for removing the experimental tag for the > pluggy interface (pr #34174 ). > It's currently denoted as experi

Re: [DISCUSS] Executors docs should be published in Airflow core or providers?

+1 to the proposal. I think core Airflow docs can contain details about the default executor that gets shipped with standalone Airflow installation and a short note about possibilities of using other (providers) executors in production and saying to look for detailed docs in the corresponding prov

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on September 08, 2023

+1 (non-binding) I tested successfully the Amazon provider package by running some testing DAGs and it looks good. On 2023/09/08 15:55:38 Elad Kalif wrote: > Hey all, > > I have just cut the new wave Airflow Providers packages. This email is > calling a vote on the release, > which will last f

Re: [DISCUSS] Executors docs should be published in Airflow core or providers?

Since we moved the executors to the providers packages and made the executor interface pluggable and extensible, we should move the docs to their corresponding providers. However, we need to keep a doc in Airflow core that explains how to use/configure a provider executor (as we have for the secret

Re: [DISCUSS] Executors docs should be published in Airflow core or providers?

Sounds reasonable to me -- Regards, Aritra Basu On Fri, Sep 8, 2023, 10:03 PM Vincent Beck wrote: > +1 > > On 2023/09/08 16:24:10 "Ferruzzi, Dennis" wrote: > > I like it. > > > > > > - ferruzzi > > > > > > > > From: Jarek Potiuk > > Sent: Friday, September 8,

Re: [DISCUSS] Executors docs should be published in Airflow core or providers?

+1 On 2023/09/08 16:24:10 "Ferruzzi, Dennis" wrote: > I like it. > > > - ferruzzi > > > > From: Jarek Potiuk > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:19 AM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL EXTERNE] [DISCUSS] Executors docs should be

Re: [DISCUSS] Executors docs should be published in Airflow core or providers?

I like it. - ferruzzi From: Jarek Potiuk Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:19 AM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL EXTERNE] [DISCUSS] Executors docs should be published in Airflow core or providers? CAUTION: This email originated f

Re: [DISCUSS] Executors docs should be published in Airflow core or providers?

+1 On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:18 PM Daniel Standish wrote: > Sounds reasonable. >

Re: [DISCUSS] Executors docs should be published in Airflow core or providers?

Sounds reasonable.

[DISCUSS] Executors docs should be published in Airflow core or providers?

Hello everyone, This thread is opened due to open issue Migrate Celery/Dask/Kubernetes Executor docs to providers *Background:* We had a discussion about extracting Celery, Kubernetes, Dask executors from core to providers (discussion thread

[VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on September 08, 2023

Hey all, I have just cut the new wave Airflow Providers packages. This email is calling a vote on the release, which will last for 72 hours - which means that it will end on September 11, 2023 15:53 PM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received. Consider this my (binding) +1. Airflow Pr

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] - Removing the Experimental tag for Pluggy

No need to vote :) that's the lazy consensus. https://community.apache.org/committers/decisionMaking.html Lazy consensus is achieved by stating your intent on a public email, and waiting an appropriate amount of time (usually 72 hours) for anyone to object. Silence indicates consent, and after t

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] - Removing the Experimental tag for Pluggy

Assuming that we need to vote in this thread, I think it completely makes sense to do so. Given that no issues have been reported adds more to my decision. +1 non binding from me. Thanks, Amogh Desai On Fri, Sep 8, 2023, 13:49 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > One small thing: just make sure to use `[LAZY

[LAZY CONSENSUS] - Removing the Experimental tag for Pluggy

One small thing: just make sure to use `[LAZY CONSENSUS]` in the subject (I just changed it) Also I suggest you subscribe to the devils with the email you have send it with - then you will receive responses (if there will be any) without the need of adding you back and we will not have to moderate