Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Ryan Hatter

Well done Ryan :) Le ven. 28 juin 2024 à 19:42, Ferruzzi, Dennis a écrit : > Hey, congrats! > > > - ferruzzi > > > > From: Pankaj Koti > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2024 10:21 AM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: RE: [EXT] [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Ryan

Re: [PROPOSAL] Automated managemenet of lower-bounds of airflow dependencies

Great work! That sounds like a really nice improvement :) Le sam. 1 juin 2024 à 10:48, Jarek Potiuk a écrit : > Hello everyone, > > TL;DR; I have finally got to something we planned when we switched to UV, I > have a green PR where we introduced automated management of "lower-bounds" >

Re: [DISCUSS] indexes for API calls

Indeed Jarek I feel like this is another point in favor of stick to "Postgres" As mentioned, maybe we were a little reckless when adding all these kinds of filters. If they are not often used and we rarely / never see performance github issues on those, marking them as 'non optimised but here for

Re: [DISCUSS] Restore the SQL server backend

I share Jed feeling. The effort required to maintain those compare to the value it actually brings combined with the usage from the survey, it doesn’t seem worth it to me. On Thu 30 May 2024 at 19:16, Jed Cunningham wrote: > Just for context, here were (roughly) the results from the 2023

Re: [DISCUSS] indexes for API calls

Thank you for starting this discussion. At first I would say that databases should be indexed to achieve good performances against standard queries / use cases. The Rest API does not do any crazy things/querying (as I recall). Listing, filtering, ordering and searching against our main tables

Re: [VOTE] May 2024 PR of the Month

Well, the task try_number was an issue for as long as I can remember and we had a few tries attempting to fix it in the past, it was a pain to work with. I am really glad to see it in a more stable state, good job! +1 for #39336 On Wed 29 May 2024 at 10:50, Bas Harenslak wrote: > My vote

Re: [HUGE DISCUSSION] Airflow3 and tactical (Airflow 2) vs strategic (Airflow 3) approach

Thank you for the work and proposal made around airflow 3. I also strongly believe that those important changes need to happen for airflow to stay relevant and it would be the right moment to start discussing and planning for airflow 3. As mentioned some features are hard to develop within

Re: [VOTE] AIP-67 Multi-team deployment of Airflow components

+1 (binding) Le jeu. 18 avr. 2024 à 18:52, Ferruzzi, Dennis a écrit : > This is exciting. +1 binding. > > > - ferruzzi > > > > From: Oliveira, Niko > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 9:16 AM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Wei Lee

Congratulations! Le lun. 8 avr. 2024 à 16:49, Wei Lee a écrit : > Thanks for all your support  Can’t be more excited 朗 > > Best, > Wei > > > On Apr 8, 2024, at 9:15 PM, Vincent Beck wrote: > > > > Congrats Wei! Well deserved! > > > > On 2024/04/08 13:03:50 Hemkumar Chheda wrote: > >>

Re: [VOTE] AIP-64: Keep TaskInstance try history

+1 (binding) On Mon 25 Mar 2024 at 19:32, Igor Kholopov wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 7:28 PM Tzu-ping Chung > wrote: > > > +1 binding. > > > > This is something we should just do even outside of the DAG versioning > > context (which we also should do, to be clear). > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate cli options in Airflow Configurations and airflow.api.client

+1, stable API should be favoured On Tue 20 Feb 2024 at 16:10, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Oh God . What an archeology. Yeah I think we had a limite when we discussed > it then (looking at the discussion) we did not have a solid replacement yet > (and the discussion was about deprecating it in 1.10).

Re: [DISCUSS] Considering trying out uv for our CI workflows

I can definitely see benefits and I would be in favour of using it in our CI jobs, allowing for faster and more robust pipeline (alternative resolution etc…) As Jarek mentioned, it is not aimed to be a user facing change, just internal to make things easier. We have cases (Sbom generation for

Re: Idea for Discussion: custom TI dependencies

e questions/comments! > > > > > > XD > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 2024, at 13:29, Constance Martineau .INVALID> > > wrote: > > > > > > Naive question: Instead of running the code on the scheduler - could > the > > > condition che

Re: Idea for Discussion: custom TI dependencies

But maybe it’s time to reconsider that :), curious to see what others think. On Fri 2 Feb 2024 at 20:30, Pierre Jeambrun wrote: > I like the idea and I understand that it might help in some use cases. > > The first concern that I have is that it would allow user code to run in > t

Re: Idea for Discussion: custom TI dependencies

I like the idea and I understand that it might help in some use cases. The first concern that I have is that it would allow user code to run in the scheduler, if I understand correctly. This would have big implications in terms of security and how our security model works. (For instance the

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Andrey Anshin (taragolis)

Congratulations Andrey! On Mon 15 Jan 2024 at 19:35, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > I have the pleasure to announce that The Project Management Committee > (PMC) for Apache Airflow has invited Andrey Anshin (taragolis) to become > Apache > Airflow PMC Member and we are pleased to announce that he has

Re: [PROPOSAL] Standardize Airflow Packaging and build process (modern appropriate PEP-compliant tooling)

I personally think that this is a great idea. I have been following the hatch project for a while and I am convinced it has a lot to offer for airflow. The two big pros for me are its ease of use (backend and front end) as well as the security covered aspects (reproducible builds to name one). I

Re: [VOTE] December PR of the Month

+1 for #35926, great work! Really glad to see this happening and giving me hope for a much cleaner/flexible webserver code. On Wed 3 Jan 2024 at 14:53, wrote: > +1 for 35719 > > > On Jan 2, 2024, at 11:14 PM, Amogh Desai > wrote: > > > > My vote goes to #35719. Having a nice UI fix come in,

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

I like the idea, but in practice auto fixable static checks are very obvious to fix and doesn’t require much work. On the other hand most of static failure are ‘real issues’ and not auto fixable, for instance mypy, spelling, sphinx, db session usage etc…. (And ruff fix is a little aggressive IMO

Re: [DISCUSS] "Require conversation resolution" in our PRs before merge?

This is something I already try to apply on my own PRs, never merge before explicitly solving all conversations. Also for a reviewer, I feel like this gives more confidence to the fact that the PR is ready, and indeed we are less subject to missing a discussion or something going on making it

Re: Making Listeners API non-experimental

+1 On Fri 15 Dec 2023 at 17:46, Aritra Basu wrote: > +1 > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 8:47 PM Vincent Beck wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 2023/12/15 12:51:26 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > +1. ESPECIALLY if there will be issues found that we will fix in 2.8.x > :D > > > > >

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Utkarsh Sharma

Congratulations! Le lun. 4 déc. 2023 à 20:18, Andrey Anshin a écrit : > Congrats!  > > > > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 at 22:45, Amogh Desai wrote: > > > This is fantastic! Congratulations Utkarsh. > > > > Well deserved! > > > > Thanks & Best Regards, > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2023

Re: [DISCUSS] Suspend/Remove Apache Scoop provider

+1 Le jeu. 23 nov. 2023 à 17:52, Hussein Awala a écrit : > +1 > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:52 AM Andrey Anshin > wrote: > > > Greetings everyone! > > > > Since we began to actively use the mechanism to suspend/remove providers > I > > want to start the discussion about suspend and potential

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.7.3 from 2.7.3rc1

+1 (binding), checksums, signatures and licenses look good. (also ran a few sample requests against breeze instance) Le lun. 13 nov. 2023 à 23:20, Hussein Awala a écrit : > +1 (binding) I tested it by triggering some dag runs and running other API > requests, and all looks good. > > On Tue, Nov

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Decouple Core and API Clients versioning

Lazy consensus has been reached. I will follow through with updating the relevant documentation and we can start working on the next major version for clients. Best regards, Le dim. 5 nov. 2023 à 23:05, Pierre Jeambrun a écrit : > Hey fellow Airflowers, > > As discussed i

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Jens Scheffler

Congrats Jens! Le mer. 8 nov. 2023 à 09:40, Pankaj Koti a écrit : > Many congratulations, Jens!!   > > > Best regards, > > *Pankaj Koti* > Senior Software Engineer (Airflow OSS Engineering team) > Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India > Timezone: Indian Standard Time (IST) > Phone: +91

[LAZY CONSENSUS] Decouple Core and API Clients versioning

to it, if there is no objection, lazy consensus will be reached on Sunday, 12th November. Pierre Jeambrun

Re: [DISCUSS] API Clients Major version

ython-client-nextgen' & with new > > build > > > process/generator and release process following the same versioning as > > > previously.. > > > > > > > > > The old python client will continue to work for current APIa but it

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,

[DISCUSS] API Clients Major version

Hello, This thread was originated from: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/34805 that tries to upgrade the generator version to 7.0.1. *Motivations/Context:* New versions of the openapi generator hold breaking changes in regards to the clients code generated. For this reason, up to now we

Re: [VOTE] October 2023 PR of the Month

+1 to 34729 Le mer. 1 nov. 2023 à 06:47, Avi a écrit : > +1 for 34729 > > Reagrds, > Avi > > > On Wednesday, Nov 01, 2023 at 05:44, utkarsh sharma < > utkarshar...@gmail.com (mailto:utkarshar...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > +1 for 34729 :) great work on that. > > > > Thanks, > > Utkarsh Sharma > > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Explain what milestones mean in our PRs/Issues - what users can expect

There is already a whole section about Semver in the README, maybe we can just link to it ? Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 18:36, Pierre Jeambrun a écrit : > I think this is a good idea. Speaking for myself, it wasn't clear to me > until I got involved in the release process. > > In that

Re: [PROPOSAL] Explain what milestones mean in our PRs/Issues - what users can expect

I think this is a good idea. Speaking for myself, it wasn't clear to me until I got involved in the release process. In that PR, I think mentioning semver and pointing to the spec could be helpful. Le sam. 28 oct. 2023 à 22:14, Jarek Potiuk a écrit : > Hey everyone, > > We had some discussions

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Qubole provider (and adding removal process)

+1 Le ven. 27 oct. 2023 à 19:16, Aritra Basu a écrit : > Sounds like a good time to set the process up. +1 from me as well. > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023, 6:42 PM Vincent Beck wrote: > > > I like that. I also think it is important to have a process to remove > >

Re: [VOTE] Add Multiple PR's of the Month to the Airflow Newsletter

Hello all, I like the idea of highlighting more than just 1 PR in the "PR of the month section", especially when we have a hard time deciding between a few good candidates. IMHO the script does not always select good candidates or sometimes miss some good candidates, (because of the heuristic we

Re: [VOTE] Add providers for Pinecone, OpenAI & Cohere to enable first-class LLMOps

+1 (binding) Le mer. 25 oct. 2023 à 13:29, Pankaj Singh a écrit : > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:52 PM Amogh Desai > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:41 PM Phani Kumar > > wrote: > > > > > +1 binding > > > > > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, 16:39 utkarsh

Re: Limiting (or errorring out) Airflow for Python 3.12 until our dependencies/we catch up

I think that limiting to <3.12 makes sense. 2.7.2 is already out so I'm not sure we can do anything for users trying to install 2.7.2 on python 3.12. I believe there is no such thing as a python minor that is out of the box working well for airflow. It seems that we always need extra efforts to

Re: [DISCUSSION] Add 5 new Providers to enable first-class LLMOps

+1 from me as well. Indeed LLMs for Apache Airflow is a no brainer, this will open a lot of opportunities for our users. Having Astronomer supporting this initiative is great. I like the idea of system tests dashboard, especially for those that are not open source/easily testable without a paid

Re: The "no_status" state

Seems like a good idea. Some kind of "task diagnosis", in case the state is not settled to give more context to users. Happy to help on that one as well. I also think that a small AIP is required, the scope of change could be substantial. Best regards, Pierre Le jeu. 19 oct. 2023 à 17:05, Brent

Re: Airflow Docs Development Issues

+1 from moving archived docs outside of airflow-site. Even if that might mean a little more maintenance in case we need to propagate changes to all historical versions, we would have to handle 2 repositories, but that seems like a minor downside compared to the quality of life improvement that it

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.7.2 from 2.7.2rc1

+1 (binding). Licences, checksums and signatures look good. Also ran a few api requests against my local install, working as expected. Le ven. 13 oct. 2023 à 09:12, Ephraim Anierobi a écrit : > Hey fellow Airflowers, > > I have cut the release candidate for the Airflow Python Client 2.7.2rc1. >

Re: [VOTE] September 2023 PR of the Month

+1 for 28900 On Fri 29 Sep 2023 at 23:14, Mehta, Shubham wrote: > + 1 to #28900. That required a lot of perseverance > > Shubham > > On 2023-09-29, 2:09 PM, "Briana Okyere" LID> wrote: > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Pankaj Koti and Amogh Desai as committers

Congratulations to both of you, well deserved :) Le mer. 20 sept. 2023 à 00:50, Akash Sharma <2akash111...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Congrats Pankaj and Amogh. > > Best regards, > Akash > > On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, 23:33 Sameer Ahmad Siddiqui, < > sameerahmad@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Congrats

Re: [DISCUSS] Preventing users from misusing _PIP_ADDITIONAL_REQUIREMENTS ?

Maybe we can introduce a global “DEBUG” config option/env variable. This could control some more verbose logging but most importantly only when this is turned on, we could use the sequential executor, debug executor, _PIP_ADDITIONAL_REQUIREMENTS and any other “debug/development” purpose options.

Re: [DISCUSS] move from semver to a more "rolling" release cycle for core

Same, I was very tempted by this at first but Jarek and Niko changed my mind. I think sticking to semver will be more beneficial in the long run. On Wed 30 Aug 2023 at 04:09, Mehta, Shubham wrote: > I couldn’t agree more with Jarek and Niko's perspective on the importance > of maintaining

Re: [VOTE] August 2023 PR of the Month

Tough call, +1 for @eumiro work. On Wed 30 Aug 2023 at 04:06, Wei Lee wrote: > +1 to #30259 > > Best, > Wei > > > On Aug 30, 2023, at 12:59 AM, Frank Cash wrote: > > > > +1 to #30259. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:27 AM Amogh Desai > > wrote: > > > >> Wasn't aware of things done by

Re: [VOTE] Drop MsSQL as supported backend

+1 (binding) Le lun. 28 août 2023 à 17:11, Vincent Beck a écrit : > +1 binding > > On 2023/08/28 07:55:17 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > (just add that my voice is binding :) ) > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 9:35 AM Amogh Desai > > wrote: > > > > > +1 non binding > > > Based on previous discussions.

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.7.0 from 2.7.0rc1

+1 binding - signatures, checksums, licences looks good. 2.7.0 client was expected to solve a few reported issues, (nullable refs). Tested those and it looks fine as well. Le mer. 23 août 2023 à 18:02, Jarek Potiuk a écrit : > +1 binding - checked signatures, checksums, run a few tests with

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop MsSQL as supported backend

I am also in favor of dropping MSSQL. We have seen a lot of trouble with this particular backend, and with the data points you mentioned it definitely seems that it's not worth all the efforts to maintain it. Le ven. 18 août 2023 à 16:28, Wei Lee a écrit : > +1 (non binding) > > I agree with

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.7.0 from 2.7.0rc2

+1 (binding) Checksum, signatures, licences and release artifacts look good to me. Ran a few tests, working as expected. Le mer. 16 août 2023 à 21:48, Pankaj Singh a écrit : > +1 (non-binding) > > Ran astro-sdk tests and tested my changes. > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 11:23 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis >

Re: [VOTE] Restore dag_run.conf UI triggering option for 2.7.0

+1 (binding) Le sam. 12 août 2023 à 19:50, Jarek Potiuk a écrit : > Tuesday 10am 15th (!) of August, 2023 of course, not 26th. That would be > quite a delay. > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 7:48 PM Hussein Awala wrote: > > > Thank you Jarek for raising this vote. > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Hussein Awala

Congratulations Hussein, well deserved! On Sat 29 Jul 2023 at 19:40, Pankaj Koti wrote: > Many congratulations, Hussein    > > On Sat, 29 Jul 2023, 23:06 Amogh Desai, wrote: > > > Awesome news! Good going, Hussein! > > > > Congratulations  > > > > Thanks, > > Amogh Desai > > > > On Sat,

Re: [VOTE] The daskexecutor, cncf.provider, celery providers in 2.7.0. as regular not-preinstalled providers

Option a On Sat 29 Jul 2023 at 22:39, Hussein Awala wrote: > I vote for option a > > On Sat 29 Jul 2023 at 21:57, Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > > > Option a. > > > > _ash > > > > On 29 July 2023 19:25:28 BST, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > >Hello everyone, > > > > > >I would like to resume the vote

Re: [VOTE] PR of the Month for the Airflow Newsletter

+1 for #31712 Le jeu. 27 juil. 2023 à 15:32, Collin McNulty a écrit : > +1 for 31712 > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 6:36 AM Phani Kumar > wrote: > > > +1 for #31712 > > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 4:53 PM Pankaj Koti > > wrote: > > > > > +1 for #32525. > > > > > > Seems like a great contribution

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.6.3 from 2.6.3rc1

+1 (binding). Signatures, licences, checksums and artifacts vs tags look good. Also used it to run a few sample dags and played around with the UI. Le lun. 10 juil. 2023 à 17:59, Phani Kumar a écrit : > +1 non-binding. Ran some example DAGs and verified that they ran > successfully > > On Mon,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Dennis Ferruzzi

Congrats Dennis! On Wed 5 Jul 2023 at 09:07, Ankit Chaurasia wrote: > Congrats! > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 12:30 PM Phani Kumar > wrote: > > > Congratulations Dennis ! > > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 6:55 AM Wei Lee wrote: > > > > > Congratulations :) > > > > > > Best, > > > Wei > >

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committers: Vincent Beck, Phani Kumar, Maciej Obuchowski

Great news!!! Congratulations  On Wed 28 Jun 2023 at 18:40, Ankit Chaurasia wrote: > Congrats > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:09 PM utkarsh sharma > wrote: > > > Congratulations! :) > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:08 PM Oliveira, Niko > > > > wrote: > > > > > Congrats all! Very

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Airflow Python Client 2.6.2 Released

: https://github.com/apache/airflow-client-python/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md Cheers, Pierre Jeambrun

[RESULT]l[VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.6.2 from 2.6.2rc2

Hello, Apache Airflow Python Client 2.6,2 (based on RC2) has been accepted. 3 "+1" binding votes received: - Ephraim Anierobi - Jarek Potiuk - Pierre Jeambrun 1 "+1" non-binding votes received: - Pankaj Koti - Utkarsh Sharma - Phani Kumar - Hussein Awala Vote thread: http

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.6.2 from 2.6.2rc2

> > > Installed the RC and triggered an example DAG run. > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Pankaj Koti > >> > > > >> > > *Senior Software Eng

[VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.6.2 from 2.6.2rc2

ty to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)". *Changelog since 2.6.2rc1* *Major changes:* - NA *Major Fixes*: - NA *NEW API supported*: - NA Cheers, Pierre Jeambrun

Re: [DISCUSS] Mechanism of SLA

This task_sla is more and more making me think of a ‘task’ on its own. It would need to be run in parallel, non blocking, not overlap between each other, etc… How hard would it be to spawn them when a task run with SLA configured as a normal workload on the worker ? Maybe on a dedicated queue /

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.6.2 from 2.6.2rc1

ilure on just > switching between the two versions). > > No time to investigate it (I am host stage tomorrow at Berlin Buzzwords and > will be busy whole day) but I created an issue: > https://github.com/apache/airflow-client-python/issues/85 > > J. > > > > > On Sun

[VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.6.2 from 2.6.2rc1

*NEW API supported*: - NA Cheers, Pierre Jeambrun

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.6.2 from 2.6.2rc2

+1 (binding), licences, checksums and signatures looks good to me. Tested my changes and ran a few DAGs. * Small typo, changes are from 2.6.2rc1 Le jeu. 15 juin 2023 à 00:40, Elad Kalif a écrit : > Hey fellow Airflowers, > > I have cut Airflow 2.6.2rc2. This email is calling a vote on the

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Pankaj Singh

Congratulations! On Tue 13 Jun 2023 at 02:30, Pankaj Koti wrote: > Many congratulations, Pankaj!! 拾 > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2023, 05:38 Vikram Koka, > wrote: > > > Awesome! Congratulations Pankaj Singh! > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:37 PM Oliveira, Niko > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Woo!

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] define supporting older Python/Kubernetes versions as best efforts

Makes sense to me Le jeu. 25 mai 2023 à 10:00, Jarek Potiuk a écrit : > Just to add it: I am very strongly in favour of that one. We keep on > fighting with small problems caused by small issues that are creeping in > :). > > J > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 7:00 AM Elad Kalif wrote: > > > Hello

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Python 3.11 support merged for Apache Airflow

Well done, this is great! I looked around on other projects for similar compatibility patches (numpy, mypy, auto-sklearn etc...) and it seems there is no consensus on the question. (feature, enhancement, misc etc.) Excluding breeze image diff, the changeset is relatively small, I see no harm in

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.6.1 from 2.6.1rc1

+1 (binding), same. I don't think this is blocking but we have the `apache-airflow-client-2.6.0-source` archive inside the 2.6.1 source archive, must be some leftovers from the last release. Le dim. 21 mai 2023 à 11:24, Jarek Potiuk a écrit : > +1 (binding). Tested the client. checked

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.6.0 from 2.6.0rc3

+1 (binding) Licenses, checksums and signatures look good. Also tried a few authenticated requests, running as expected. Le dim. 7 mai 2023 à 18:51, Ephraim Anierobi a écrit : > Hey fellow Airflowers, > > I have cut the first release candidate for the Airflow Python Client > 2.6.0rc3. > The

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow Python Client 2.6.0 from 2.6.0rc1

(+1 binding) Checked signatures and checksums, ran a few requests, looking good. Le mar. 2 mai 2023 à 10:31, Ephraim Anierobi a écrit : > Hey fellow Airflowers, > > I have cut the first release candidate for the Airflow Python Client > 2.6.0rc1. > The client consists of APIs corresponding to

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.6.0 from 2.6.0rc5

+1 binding. (licences, signatures, checksums and a few sample DAGs were fine) Le sam. 29 avr. 2023 à 15:09, Ash Berlin-Taylor a écrit : > +1 binding. > > I'm having flashbacks to the 1.9.0 release. > -ash > On Apr 29 2023, at 2:00 pm, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > +1 binding. Checked licences,

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.6.0 from 2.6.0rc4

+1 (binding) checked signatures, licences and checksum, ran a few DAGs, looks good. Le ven. 28 avr. 2023 à 19:08, Josh Fell a écrit : > +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:04 AM Hussein Awala wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Fri 28 Apr 2023 at 18:03, Ash Berlin-Taylor

Re: [VOTE] April 2023 PR of the Month

+1 for #30175 Le mer. 26 avr. 2023 à 19:46, Phani Kumar a écrit : > +1 for #30705 > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:02 PM Hussein Awala wrote: > > > +1 for #30705 > > > > On Wed 26 Apr 2023 at 19:23, Pankaj Singh > > wrote: > > > > > +1 for #30705 as it has reduced CI execution drastically. > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.6.0 from 2.6.0rc1

+1 (binding), tested my changes, verified licences, checksum and signatures, all looks good. Le lun. 24 avr. 2023 à 16:08, Pankaj Koti a écrit : > +1 non-binding. We tested our asynchronous providers' DAGs for multiple > providers. > Regards, > > > > Pankaj Koti > > *Senior Software Engineer,

Re: [PROPOSAL] Archiving some old repos

+1 Le sam. 22 avr. 2023 à 08:51, Jarek Potiuk a écrit : > Hello everyone, > > We have a few old unused git repositories that have been used in the past > but now are defunct. Some of the old repos are marked as "archived" (i.e. > read-only and with the "public archive" banner - for example this

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer Hussein Awala

Congratulations Hussein, well deserved ! On Tue 11 Apr 2023 at 23:51, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Hello Airflow Community, > > I am happy to announce that the Project Management Committee > (PMC) for Apache Airflow has invited Hussein Awala > (github nickname hussein-awala) to become a > committer

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on April 02, 2023

+1 (binding). Verified checksums, signatures, licences, all looks good. Le mer. 5 avr. 2023 à 08:18, Pankaj Singh a écrit : > +1 non binding > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 10:19 AM Rajath Srinivasaiah > wrote: > > > +1 non binding > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > Rajath S > >

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Airflow 2.5.3 Released

notes here for more details: https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/2.5.3/release_notes.html Container images are published at: https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/airflow/tags/?page=1=2.5.3 Cheers, Pierre Jeambrun

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.3 from 2.5.3rc2

Hello, Apache Airflow 2.5.3 (based on RC2) has been accepted. 5 "+1" binding votes received: - Brent Bovenzi - Jarek Potiuk - Elad Kalif - Kaxil Naik - Pierre Jeambrun 3 "+1" non-binding votes received: - Josh Fell - Pankaj Singh - Hussein Awala Vote thread: https://lis

[VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.3 from 2.5.3rc2

release. Release Notes: https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/2.5.3rc2/RELEASE_NOTES.rst Changes since 2.5.3rc1: *Bug Fixes:* - Fix some long known Graph View UI problems (#29971, *#30355, #30360*) *Misc/Internal:* - None *Doc only changes:* - None Cheers, Pierre Jeambrun

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.3 from 2.5.3rc1

noying, personally I wouldn't upgrade to 2.5.3 > if we keep it like that and would rather wait for 2.5.4, but +1 to fix it > in 2.5.3rc2. > > ________ > From: Pierre Jeambrun > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 9:03:34 PM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: Re

Re: [VOTE] March PR of the Month

There are a lot of great PRs this month, my vote goes to 29413 that I find amazing. Le mar. 28 mars 2023 à 21:03, Ferruzzi, Dennis a écrit : > Having poked at the KubernetesPodOperator in the past and knowing what a > bear it is to work with, I'll throw my vote to 28336. > > > - ferruzzi > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.3 from 2.5.3rc1

*Indeed the milestone for that *issue* was wrong. Le mar. 28 mars 2023 à 21:02, Pierre Jeambrun a écrit : > Hello Jens, > > Indeed the milestone for that PR was wrong. Thanks Jarek for fixing that. > > I also updated milestones for similar issues that will not be fixed in > 2

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.3 from 2.5.3rc1

00; > > Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Stefan Asenkerschbaumer; > Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Hartung, > > Dr. Christian Fischer, Filiz Albrecht, Dr. Markus Forschner, Dr. Markus > Heyn, Dr. Tanja Rückert > > > > -Original Message- > > From:

[VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.3 from 2.5.3rc1

Fix some punctuation and grammar (#29342) Cheers, Pierre Jeambrun

Re: [DISCUSS] AIP-52 updates - setup / teardown tasks

I am also in favor of explicit relationships only. >From a person who didn't work on AIP-52, it seems easier to understand what is going on without having to dive into the setup/teardown documentation. Le jeu. 23 mars 2023 à 22:53, Jed Cunningham a écrit : > I've been working closely with

Re: Request for feedback on proposal for new OpenLineage provider in Airflow

Same here if you can add me please. Looking forward to this session. Le mer. 22 mars 2023 à 23:07, Mehta, Shubham a écrit : > Please include me, I will try my best to join (shubhammehta...@gmail.com) > > Best, > Shubham > > On 2023-03-22, 2:24 PM, "Jarek Potiuk" ja...@potiuk.com>> wrote: > >

Re: [AIP-49 OTel] [Discussion] Metrics Provider packages

I really like the idea of having OTEL as the metrics backbone for airflow. The flexibility and abstraction layer it offers really opens a lot of opportunities. I share Jarek's feelings for the current Statsd/Datadog situation, writing 2 custom collectors that will ensure backward compatibility

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Pierre Jeambrun

March 15, 2023 2:47:31 AM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL][ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Pierre Jeambrun > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New PMC member: Brent Bovenzi

Congratulations Brent, well deserved :) Le mer. 15 mars 2023 à 18:55, Oliveira, Niko a écrit : > Congrats Brent!! > > > From: Jorrick Sleijster > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 9:09:07 AM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL][ANNOUNCE] New PMC

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Airflow 2.5.2 Released

notes here for more details: https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/2.5.2/release_notes.html Container images are published at: https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/airflow/tags/?page=1=2.5.2 Cheers, Pierre Jeambrun

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.2 from 2.5.2rc2

Hello, Apache Airflow 2.5.2 (based on RC2) has been accepted. 5 "+1" binding votes received: - Jed Cunningham - Kaxil Naik - Jarek Potiuk - Ephraim Anierobi - Elad Kalif 5 "+1" non-binding votes received: - Josh Fell - Hussein Awala - Pankaj Singh - Phani Kumar - Pierre J

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.2 from 2.5.2rc2

ce 2.5.2rc1" since we already voted on rc1 rather > than full changelog > > On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 21:46, Pierre Jeambrun > wrote: > > > Hey fellow Airflowers, > > > > I have cut Airflow 2.5.2rc2. This email is calling a vote on the release, > > which will

[VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.2 from 2.5.2rc2

Hey fellow Airflowers, I have cut Airflow 2.5.2rc2. This email is calling a vote on the release, which will last *24 hours*, from Monday, March 13, 2023 at 9:45 pm UTC until Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:45 pm UTC, and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received. Status of testing of the release

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.2 from 2.5.2rc1

A bug was found in rc1 that will necessitate an rc2. I'm canceling this vote and we will create 2.5.2rc2 soon. Best regards, Pierre Jeambrun Le lun. 13 mars 2023 à 15:17, Brent Bovenzi a écrit : > +1 binding > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 3:56 AM Phani Kumar > wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.2 from 2.5.2rc1

Correcting myself to avoid any confusion, vote end date is Monday, March 13, 2023 at 9:00 pm UTC (not October) Le sam. 11 mars 2023 à 19:47, Jed Cunningham a écrit : > +1 (binding) > > Checked signatures, checksums, licences. Used it with the helm chart with a > few different configs. >

[VOTE] Release Airflow 2.5.2 from 2.5.2rc1

Hey fellow Airflowers, I have cut Airflow 2.5.2rc1. This email is calling a vote on the release, which will last at least 72 hours, from Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:00 pm UTC until Monday, October 13, 2023 at 9:00 pm UTC, and until 3 binding +1 votes have been received. Status of testing of the

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Allow shorter voting periods for subsequent RCs

72 hours have passed, we will start using this policy for our future releases. Thanks Le mar. 7 mars 2023 à 21:29, Ferruzzi, Dennis a écrit : > +1 (non-bindingly lazy) > > > ____ > From: Pierre Jeambrun > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023

[LAZY CONSENSUS] Allow shorter voting periods for subsequent RCs

Hi all, *Context:*Having a 72h vote window on each subsequent RCs can slow down the release process, bring some annoyance and add load on the release manager. This could be avoided, especially when the new RC only ships a few extra commits. This proposal would bring some flexibility to the

  1   2   >