Hello,
I would reccomend referencing Airflow Summit speakers as well.
https://airflowsummit.org/
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 11:14 PM Clemens Lange
wrote:
> Dear Airflow developers,
>
> The first week of April (3-5, April) there will be a workshop at CERN on
> the current and future use of
+1 (binding) - tested / verified all changes I was involved (either as
fixer, bug introducer or both, particularly when both), verified
reproducibility, licences, checksums, signatures, run a few DAGs - all
looks good.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 4:56 PM Jed Cunningham
wrote:
> Hey fellow
There is no specific rush, in case it is considered as
experimental feature, this vote shows that it is not, it might be removed
in any minor release.
Benefit: remove legacy/unsupported/unmaintained code from codebase, rather
than move it into the separate component (if someone wanted they might
I'm -1 to enabling D105
I don't think it will lead to helpful documentation. I think for the rare cases
it is required it can left up to the developer or caught in PR review.
Cheers,
Niko
From: Vincent Beck
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 5:51:43 AM
To:
Hey fellow Airflowers,
I have cut Airflow 2.8.4rc1. This email is calling a vote on the release,
which will last at least 72 hours, from Wednesday, March 20, 2024 at 4:00
pm UTC
until Saturday, March 23, 2024 at 4:00 pm UTC, and until 3 binding +1 votes
have been received.
> It handles everything. Now if you want to send a Slack message from a
> PythonOperator
you need to initialize a hook, find the right function to invoke etc.
> And to Elad point " "I know there is an operator that does X, so I will
just use it inside the python function I invoke from the
+1 for not enforcing as well. Let's leave to maintainers the flexibility to
chose whether a given method should be documented.
On 2024/03/20 08:28:51 Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
> I'm for not enforcing this rule - as others have said its very unlikely to
> result in more useful docs for
I am really torn on that one to be honest.
I am OK with the error (with the note that it will likely break a lot of
workflows), I am ok with the warning as well as a softer way of letting the
user know they are doing it wrong).
But ultimately, I'd really want we (re) consider if we cannot make it
The reason users are sure they can use operators like that is that it has
worked for a long time - hell I even wrote a custom nested operator in the past
(pre 2.0 admittedly).
So this pr should only be a warning by default, or a config option to warn but
not error
Alternatively do we just
I'm for not enforcing this rule - as others have said its very unlikely to
result in more useful docs for developers or end users.
-asg
On 20 March 2024 08:12:40 GMT, Andrey Anshin wrote:
>±0 from my side
>
>Maybe we have to review all current methods which do not follow this rule
>to find a
±0 from my side
Maybe we have to review all current methods which do not follow this rule
to find a really useful meaning, and do not enforce (disable it).
So for avoid unnecessary changes we might close
https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/37523 and remove/mark completed
into the
FYI. Python 3.12 is now fully back - ready for 2.9.0.
We even got some of the providers that were excluded, back in:
* databricks is back in after the issue we had was determined as "Python
coverage" tool not working well yet for Python 3.12 (we disabled coverage
for Python 3.12 now)
*
Just to add to the discussion - a discussion raised today
https://github.com/apache/airflow/discussions/38311 where the user is sure
that they can use operators in such a way as described above, and even used
the term "nested operator".
I think getting
+1 to what Aritra is saying.
Best regards,
*Pankaj Koti*
Senior Software Engineer (Airflow OSS Engineering team)
Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India
Timezone: Indian Standard Time (IST)
Phone: +91 9730079985
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:05 PM Aritra Basu
wrote:
> I'm in general not a huge fan
I'm in general not a huge fan of documenting for the sake of documenting,
so I'd be in agreement of not enforcing it via code but rather be enforced
by the reviewers in cases they believe certain methods need documenting.
--
Regards,
Aritra Basu
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 9:39 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
15 matches
Mail list logo
