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

I didn't have many changes this time but I tested out by running a few dags, mostly on cncf provider and they work as expected. +1 non binding Thanks, Amogh Desai On Sun, Sep 10, 2023, 03:41 Hussein Awala wrote: > I checked the signatures, the checksums, the licences and the source code. > I c

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

I checked the signatures, the checksums, the licences and the source code. I checked my changes, they are all present in the RC. I ran some testing dags for AWS and Kubernetes providers, all seem good. It seems like there is an issue with dbt.cloud provider ( https://github.com/apache/airflow/issu

Re: Lazy Consensus - Removing the Experimental tag for Pluggy

> Misunderstood. Thought it was only released a few months ago. Time flies! I just checked the PR, and there is something to clarify; this lazy consensus is to remove the experimental tag from Pluggy interface used in the cluster policies (released in 2.6.0), and not the one used in the listeners

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

+1 (non-binding) Tested the OpenLineage providers. Looks good to me. On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:55 PM Vincent Beck wrote: > +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

Re: Lazy Consensus - Removing the Experimental tag for Pluggy

+1 (non-binding) I've seen this used as a workaround for implementing a cluster policy when (for whatever reason) modifying airflow_local_settings.py is not possible. On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at