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

+1 (non-binding). My change works *mostly* as expected, and the unexpected behavior isn't really a problem On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 1:40 PM Josh Fell wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Tested my changes (and another related

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

+1 (non-binding) Tested my changes (and another related one). Looks good. On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 2:58 AM Rahul Vats wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Regards, > Rahul Vats > 9953794332 > > > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 11:37, Wei Lee wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > 1. Tested with #33825

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

+1 to this! I also have a docs section half written on the executor interface and how to extend it. But I've been very busy with a few other items that are completing soon. Cheers, Niko From: Pankaj Koti Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 12:03:35 PM To:

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

+1 (non-binding) Regards, Rahul Vats 9953794332 On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 11:37, Wei Lee wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > 1. Tested with #33825 , > #33822 , #34098 < >

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

+1 (non-binding) 1. Tested with #33825 , #33822 , #34098 2. astronomer-providers example DAGs ran fine, as Pankaj mentioned. It would be nice if we could