Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.11.0 from 2.11.0rc1

2025-05-19 Thread Jed Cunningham
+1 (binding) Checked reproducibility, signatures, checksums, licences. Used it with the helm chart with a few different configs.

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.11.0 from 2.11.0rc1

2025-05-19 Thread Rahul Vats
+1 (non-binding), verified running example DAGs all work fine. Regards, Rahul Vats On Mon, 19 May 2025 at 18:54, Wei Lee wrote: > Changing my vote to +1. Thanks > > Best, > Wei > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:38 PM Kaxil Naik wrote: > > > @weilee...@gmail.com : Since this is not a new bug > > a

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache OpenDAL Provider (One Layer, All Storage)

2025-05-19 Thread Jarek Potiuk
Agree it's a mature project (and being in ASF we can count on community and active maintenance). While there is overlap, there is indeed a much broader scope of OpenDAL than fsspec. Interestingly enough I've found https://github.com/fsspec/opendalfs - an implementation of the fsspec on OpenDal - i

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow Python Client 3.0.0 from 3.0.0rc1

2025-05-19 Thread Jarek Potiuk
+1 binding - but with a few caveats, and some bad consequences if we release it (up to Kaxil to decide) Tested reproducibility, checksums signatures, licences are ok since all the code is generated from "airflow", the package is **almost** reproducible - the one difference is EOL in version,txt -

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache OpenDAL Provider (One Layer, All Storage)

2025-05-19 Thread Pavankumar Gopidesu
Yes kaxil, agree on some overlap and we should provide the right message to users to help them choose what to use when. OpenDAL comes with predefined backends(ex: s3, gcs, fs, ghac, memcached etc;), all these backends work on the interface file like operations, so from users POV they have to confi

[LAZY CONSENSUS] Maintenance policy for Airflow 2.x after the Airflow 3.0.0 release

2025-05-19 Thread Kaxil Naik
Hi team, As a follow-up to the discussion in https://lists.apache.org/thread/xsj7h4gyk51ktxt8z9xppckknojdq70v , I want to call for a lazy consensus to formally decide and document it. Airflow 2.x line will be maintained for: - 6 months of maintenance support for "bug fixes" - 12 months of

Re: [DISCUSSION] Support policy for Airflow 2.x after the Airflow 3.0.0 release

2025-05-19 Thread Kaxil Naik
Cool, will create a Lazy consensus with 6+6 On Fri, 16 May 2025 at 01:52, Jed Cunningham wrote: > +1 to 6+6. > > Not sure we really need to clarify what the dates mean as part of setting > timelines - we already operate this way. But if we have anywhere that is > vague in our docs etc, of course

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache OpenDAL Provider (One Layer, All Storage)

2025-05-19 Thread Kaxil Naik
Good idea. However, there is some overlap with ObjectStorage too. OpenDAL looks to be a superset of ObjectStorage for sure, but we will need to figure out the messaging to users from POV of what they should be using. On Mon, 19 May 2025 at 13:31, Pavankumar Gopidesu wrote: > Yes Vikram we can di

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.11.0 from 2.11.0rc1

2025-05-19 Thread Wei Lee
Changing my vote to +1. Thanks Best, Wei On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:38 PM Kaxil Naik wrote: > @weilee...@gmail.com : Since this is not a new bug > and also localized to SQLite, could you reconsider changing your -1 to +1. > > On Mon, 19 May 2025 at 13:17, Amogh Desai > wrote: > >> +1 non bindi

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.11.0 from 2.11.0rc1

2025-05-19 Thread Kaxil Naik
@weilee...@gmail.com : Since this is not a new bug and also localized to SQLite, could you reconsider changing your -1 to +1. On Mon, 19 May 2025 at 13:17, Amogh Desai wrote: > +1 non binding. > > Ran a few example dags from my test suite, and performed a few clicks on > the > UI doing various

[VOTE] Release Apache Airflow Python Client 3.0.0 from 3.0.0rc1

2025-05-19 Thread Kaxil Naik
Hey fellow Airflowers, I have cut the first release candidate for the Apache Airflow Python Client 3.0.0. This email is calling for a vote on the release, which will last for 72 hours. Consider this my (binding) +1. Airflow Client 3.0.0rc1 is available at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/a

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Staging system for docs - including latest Provider wave

2025-05-19 Thread Elad Kalif
Vert cool! love it! On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:47 AM Amogh Desai wrote: > Amazing work, Jarek! > > Watermark is nice too! > > Thanks & Regards, > Amogh Desai > > > On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 2:07 AM Buğra Öztürk > wrote: > > > Thanks Jarek! Amazing news! > > I like the watermark as well, it is a c

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Staging system for docs - including latest Provider wave

2025-05-19 Thread Amogh Desai
Amazing work, Jarek! Watermark is nice too! Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 2:07 AM Buğra Öztürk wrote: > Thanks Jarek! Amazing news! > I like the watermark as well, it is a clear distinction :) > > On Fri, 16 May 2025, 14:13 Rahul Vats, wrote: > > > This is amazing. Th

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache OpenDAL Provider (One Layer, All Storage)

2025-05-19 Thread Pavankumar Gopidesu
Yes Vikram we can discuss. Pavan, On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 12:55 AM Vikram Koka wrote: > Pavan, > > From a concept perspective and strategic direction, I am in 100% agreement. > I have also been thinking about this and submitted a talk for the Airflow > Summit on this topic. > > I am unsure of t

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.11.0 from 2.11.0rc1

2025-05-19 Thread Amogh Desai
+1 non binding. Ran a few example dags from my test suite, and performed a few clicks on the UI doing various things. (Using the old UI now seems hard!) Wei, your issue seems to be localised to SQLite. Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 2:34 PM Jens Scheffler wrote: > Hi