Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.7.3 from 2.7.3rc1

+1 (binding) Checked checksums, signatures, licences and sources. All looks good. Ran a few DAGs, clicked through UI. I run airflow with Local/Celery executors - it looks good. Found that the image's `pip` version is not what was expected (and was always lagging a bit) but this is not a blocker an

Re: [Discussion] Requesting Feedback on Airflow Survey

Awesome! Will follow up with you both after the results are in. That will take a few weeks :) On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:13 PM Amogh Desai wrote: > Count me in to analyze the results as well, Briana. > > Thanks & Best Regards, > Amogh Desai > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2023, 00:12 Aritra Basu wrote: > > >

Re: [Discussion] Requesting Feedback on Airflow Survey

Count me in to analyze the results as well, Briana. Thanks & Best Regards, Amogh Desai On Fri, Nov 3, 2023, 00:12 Aritra Basu wrote: > Ooh, sounds fun. Count me in! > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023, 10:05 PM Briana Okyere > wrote: > > > Glad to hear it, Aritra! It means

Re: [Discussion] Requesting Feedback on Airflow Survey

Ooh, sounds fun. Count me in! -- Regards, Aritra Basu On Thu, Nov 2, 2023, 10:05 PM Briana Okyere wrote: > Glad to hear it, Aritra! It means reviewing and helping us present the > results to the larger community in a valuable way. > > EG here is how we did last year's: >

[LAZY CONSENSUS] Migrating our reference images to Debian Bookworm for Airflow 2.8

Hello everyone, *TL;DR;* Following our OS upgrade policy [1] - I ask for a lazy consensus to switch our Docker images from Bullseye to Bookworm. The 2.8 version will be based on Bookworm, and we keep an option to build a custom Bullseye image for users who need it). In 2.9 we will drop Bullseye s

Re: [Discussion] Requesting Feedback on Airflow Survey

Glad to hear it, Aritra! It means reviewing and helping us present the results to the larger community in a valuable way. EG here is how we did last year's: On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 9:08 AM Aritra Basu wrote: > Hey Briana, > What does analys

Re: [Discussion] Requesting Feedback on Airflow Survey

Hey Briana, What does analysing the results entail? Sounds intriguing, I'd be interested to help. -- Regards, Aritra Basu On Thu, Nov 2, 2023, 9:03 PM Briana Okyere wrote: > Hey All, > > Thank you so much for this feedback- I reviewed all of your notes yesterday > with a few other folks and we

Re: [Discussion] Requesting Feedback on Airflow Survey

Hey All, Thank you so much for this feedback- I reviewed all of your notes yesterday with a few other folks and we were able to implement many of your suggestions to make this thing even better than last year's. I will be closing feedback now so we can move forward with getting this thing out the

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.7.3 from 2.7.3rc1

+1 (binding). Checksums, signatures, licences and sources look good. Ran a few simple DAGs as well. Le jeu. 2 nov. 2023 à 13:42, Ephraim Anierobi a écrit : > Hey fellow Airflowers, > > I have cut Airflow 2.7.3rc1. This email is calling a vote on the release, > which will last at least 72 hours,

Re: [DISCUSS] API Clients Major version

Yeah. I thought a bit more about it and yeah, with next gen and the versioning still aligned with airflow l we are likely to fall in the same trap. And will have to come up with next-next-gen client :) . Even if for example we decisr that we want to change some parameters of generator that might pr

[VOTE] Release Airflow 2.7.3 from 2.7.3rc1

Hey fellow Airflowers, I have cut Airflow 2.7.3rc1. This email is calling a vote on the release, which will last at least 72 hours, from Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:40 pm UTC until Sunday, November 5, 2023, at 12:40 pm UTC

Re: [DISCUSS] API Clients Major version

The ask by Pierre is very valid and makes a lot of sense. When we defined this versioning system, we took a lot of inspiration from Python clients of other famous OSS software like Kubernetes & probably did not think of the versioning changes in the generator itself. I looked at the k8s python-cli

Re: [DISCUSS] API Clients Major version

Hi, I thought about the alternate proposal but as the old branch of openapi is not really maintained if security problems pile-up it will in any way not be a path forward. If it would be long maintained I would have agreed. (Whereas „nextgen“ is to be prevented because how to name the successor