Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1

+1 (non-binding) Best regards, *Pankaj Koti* Senior Software Engineer (Airflow OSS Engineering team) Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India Timezone: Indian Standard Time (IST) Phone: +91 9730079985 On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:00 PM Ephraim Anierobi wrote: > Hi Bolke, > > I have included the link

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1

Hi Bolke, I have included the link to what will be in the next release, in the email template as you suggested through this PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/36863. Thanks for the suggestion! - Ephraim On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 05:35, Rahul Vats wrote: > +1 (non-binding). > >-

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1

+1 (non-binding). - Verified that running our example DAGs did not reveal any regressions. - Verified installation with helm chart and running example DAGS. - Verified the API endpoints and no regressions were found. Regards, Rahul Vats 9953794332 On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 00:46, Andrey

Re: [VOTE] Accept AIP-60 (Standard URI representation for Airflow Datasets)

+1 (non-binding) On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:03 AM Maciej Obuchowski wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 22:51 Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) > wrote: > > > +1 binding as discussed - looking forward for this and THANKS! > > > > Sent from Outlook for iOS

Re: [VOTE] Accept AIP-60 (Standard URI representation for Airflow Datasets)

+1 (non-binding) On Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 22:51 Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) wrote: > +1 binding as discussed - looking forward for this and THANKS! > > Sent from Outlook for iOS > > From: Tzu-ping Chung > Sent: Thursday, January 18,

Re: AIP-61 - Hybrid Executors

It sure does! Thank you. On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 3:17 PM Oliveira, Niko wrote: > Hey Ryan, > > Thanks for the reply! I'll make that note more clear in the AIP. It's a > nuanced point, and the wording is a bit vague at best right now or > borderline misleading >< > > What I'm trying to say here

Re: AIP-61 - Hybrid Executors

Hey Ryan, Thanks for the reply! I'll make that note more clear in the AIP. It's a nuanced point, and the wording is a bit vague at best right now or borderline misleading >< What I'm trying to say here is that if you don't configure a specific executor for a task, it will run on the

Re: [VOTE] Accept AIP-60 (Standard URI representation for Airflow Datasets)

+1 binding as discussed - looking forward for this and THANKS! Sent from Outlook for iOS From: Tzu-ping Chung Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 9:07:42 AM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Accept AIP-60 (Standard URI representation

Re: [DISCUSSION] Enabling `pre-commit.ci` application for Airflow

I'm in favor of this. I love making docs changes directly in GitHub, but I often make a tiny mistake like a trailing space and the tests fail. I think things like this discourage new contributors, as contributing to docs is the easiest way to start getting involved. On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 12:16 

Re: AIP-61 - Hybrid Executors

> > *IMPORTANT NOTE*: task instances that run on the default/environment > executor (i.e. with no specific override provided) will not persist the > executor in the same way so that they can be re-run/retried on any executor. Does this mean that any task that doesn't have the `executor`

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1

+1 binding Checked signatures, files, licences and also my changes One small nit which I've noticed when executing check_files.py. After we switch to hatch the source distribution name include non-normalized name: use _ (underscore) instead of - (hyphen): apache_airflow-2.8.1.tar.gz instead of

Re: What goes into the next release (was [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1)

Well that's the whole point about repeating "SemVer" enough times should be enough to distinct the feature (2.9.0) release from patchlevel (BTW. patchlevel name comes from SemVer so I am not sure if that changes much to mention it). But maybe another suggestion - I think maybe you can propose a PR

Re: [DISCUSSION] Adding support for Qdrant provider

Proposal looks solid and covers all needed aspects Thank you for the time invested in drafting it. On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:49 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Fantastic :). Will take a look. I think with all those - if there are no > comments from others in a day or so - might be a good time to

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1

+1 Non binding ‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 18 בינו׳ 2024 ב-13:31 מאת ‪Elad Kalif‬‏ <‪elad...@apache.org ‬‏>:‬ > +1 binding > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 12:52 PM Bolke de Bruin wrote: > > > +1 binding. > > > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 11:00, Hussein Awala wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) Checked signatures,

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1

+1 binding On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 12:52 PM Bolke de Bruin wrote: > +1 binding. > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 11:00, Hussein Awala wrote: > > > +1 (binding) Checked signatures, checksums, licences and sources, I also > > ran some testing DAGs; all look good. > > > > > > On Thu 18 Jan 2024 at

Re: What goes into the next release (was [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1)

Thanks Jarek, as mentioned in the other thread it seemed to break a different pattern for me. I was aware of "what goes into the next release", but the title seemed more indicative of roadmap items and thus geared to consumers of a release. Earlier, it seems, I was helped by others when PRs were

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1

+1 binding. On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 11:00, Hussein Awala wrote: > +1 (binding) Checked signatures, checksums, licences and sources, I also > ran some testing DAGs; all look good. > > > On Thu 18 Jan 2024 at 06:54, Phani Kumar .invalid> > wrote: > > > +1 non binding > > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1

Thanks Ephraim, that pattern did not catch my attention (or I thought it was breaking a different pattern). Maybe it is nice to label the release (patch, major - yes I know it is semver but still) and include the link in the voting template? That makes it easier for the more occasional view. B.

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1

+1 (binding) Checked signatures, checksums, licences and sources, I also ran some testing DAGs; all look good. On Thu 18 Jan 2024 at 06:54, Phani Kumar wrote: > +1 non binding > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:30 AM Amogh Desai > wrote: > > > +1 non binding > > > > Installed the RC with helm

Re: What goes into the next release (was [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1)

Great idea. I will take a look at this shortly. Thanks! On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 1:48 PM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Created PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/36858 where I proposed > a separate document - with a bit more polished version of what I wrote > above, interlinked with the succinct

Re: [DISCUSSION] Adding support for Qdrant provider

Fantastic :). Will take a look. I think with all those - if there are no comments from others in a day or so - might be a good time to (re-) start a formal lazy consensus. Just one small comment - in the email state the time when lazy consensus will be reached (usually we allow 72 HRs minimum (you

Re: What goes into the next release (was [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.8.1 from 2.8.1rc1)

Created PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/36858 where I proposed a separate document - with a bit more polished version of what I wrote above, interlinked with the succinct README chapter we already have. I also expanded there a bit "What's the purpose of patch-level release" explaining

[VOTE] Accept AIP-60 (Standard URI representation for Airflow Datasets)

AIP page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-60+Standard+URI+representation+for+Airflow+Datasets Discussion thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/rf6c80ljjkml0l15h2jys7k713q3os1d Reaction on the proposal seems to mostly positive, with most comments around what