Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 30, 2024

+1 (non-binding) Ran some dags and it worked fine! On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 7:55 AM Wei Lee wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Tested my changes with our example DAG without encountering error > > Best, > Wei > > > On Jan 31, 2024, at 6:34 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) - checked

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 30, 2024

+1 (non-binding) Tested my changes with our example DAG without encountering error Best, Wei > On Jan 31, 2024, at 6:34 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > +1 (binding) - checked reproducibility, licences, signatures, checksums - > all good. > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 5:42 PM Elad Kalif wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 30, 2024

+1 (binding) - checked reproducibility, licences, signatures, checksums - all good. On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 5:42 PM Elad Kalif wrote: > Hey all, > > I have just cut an ad-hoc release for the microsoft.azure provider package. > This email is calling a vote on the release, > which will last for

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Starting experimenting with "Require conversation resolution" setting

+1 for keeping it, it's useful to avoid forgetting old conversations, even if they are sometimes outdated (ex #22253), spending 2 minutes closing them is better than merging the PR without considering some of them. On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 8:11 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis wrote: > So far, my only real

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Starting experimenting with "Require conversation resolution" setting

So far, my only real down side is that sometimes discussions happen in comments (not in threaded code comments, but in one-off "add a comment" comments) which this doesn't capture and they are annoying to track. While that isn't an actual issue with this CI change, this change may possibly

[RESULT][VOTE] January 2024 PR of the Month

Hey All, Congratulations to Jarek on winning PR of the Month for January 2044 with PR #36537: Standardize airflow build process and switch to Hatchling build backend. Well deserved Jarek! PR #36537 will be featured in the January 2024 Newsletter,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Starting experimenting with "Require conversation resolution" setting

Glad to see such positive feedback :) . To be honest - I've been interacting with ~ 120 PR over the last few months and for me it was only positive. I had a few cases where I wanted to merge a PR and got "1 conversation unresolved" and it made me come back: Particularly this one

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Starting experimenting with "Require conversation resolution" setting

Yeah, I've found this to be pretty smooth as well. In most cases comments were already resolved and in lesser cases it was useful to see which conversations still needed addressing before merging. +1 from me! From: Ryan Hatter Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Starting experimenting with "Require conversation resolution" setting

In my experience outside of Airflow, the benefit of not missing a review comment outweighs the friction of being required to resolve each conversation. On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 8:47 PM Wei Lee wrote: > I didn't notice much of a difference as a contributor. +1 vote > > Best, > Wei > > > On Jan

[VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 30, 2024

Hey all, I have just cut an ad-hoc release for the microsoft.azure provider package. This email is calling a vote on the release, which will last for 72 hours - which means that it will end on February 02, 2024 16:40 PM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received. Consider this my