ut for a while this time to
> hear from others first :)
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 6:32 PM Robin Edwards wrote:
>>
>> This is probably slightly touching on the issues Jarek and Kevin were
>> discussing in the release announcement however i think it warrants its
>>
This is probably slightly touching on the issues Jarek and Kevin were
discussing in the release announcement however i think it warrants its
own thread.
Firstly i'd like to thank everyone for their hard work in 2.3, I
haven't had time to try it out yet but i do look forward giving it a
spin.
We r
+1 (non-binding)
On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 02:47, Josh Fell
wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Verified some bug fixes and ran a few DAGs.
>
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 2:39 PM Leon Smith wrote:
>>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 at 16:28, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 (binding) - signat
e a look at this issue today regardless.
>
> -ash
>
> On Wed, Nov 10 2021 at 10:57:08 +, Robin Edwards
> wrote:
>
> -1 (non binding) As https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/19461 is not
> fixed which i consider critical. On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 22:31, Jed Cunning
-1 (non binding)
As https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/19461 is not fixed which i
consider critical.
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 22:31, Jed Cunningham wrote:
>
> Hey fellow Airflowers,
>
> I have cut Airflow 2.2.2rc1. This email is calling a vote on the release,
> which will last for 72 hours, f
+1 non binding
On Fri, 29 Oct 2021, 10:09 Jarek Potiuk, wrote:
> +1 (binding) : basic tests work, signature, licence, checksum - all OK.
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 7:50 AM Elad Kalif wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> בתאריך יום ו׳, 29 באוק׳ 2021, 11:44, מאת Leon Smith :
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>
Nice one Ash,
+1
R
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 05:04, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
> Indeed. Thanks Ash! Much appreciated!
>
> J.
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:40 AM Kevin Yang wrote:
>
> > Thank you Ash. +1 and stamped.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kevin Y
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 2:46 PM Deng Xiaodong w
+1
On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, 11:32 Kaxil Naik, wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 11:31 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
>
> > As we discussed in the thread on Spec thread for our new API, the idea
> > came up of making conn_id unique in Airflow
> >
> > <
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020, 01:20 QP Hou, wrote:
> It looks like we need to first make a decision on whether we want to
> enforce uniqueness for conn_id and implement connection load balance
> properly in another way.
>
Yea I feel there are plenty of other tools and services for implementing
load balan
Just loaded up our dev environment and done a few sanity checks and
also ran our test suite.
Thank you everyone for their hard work very much looking forward to
rolling this out.
Python 3.7 / Postgres / Celery
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 23:19, Xinbin Huang wrote:
>
> Test with Pyth
ook at Cypress for this over Selenium. What
> > ever
> > > we choose we need to pay careful attention to avoid slow or flakey UI
> > tests.
> > >
> >
> > This, to me, is a crucial step in ensuring a smooth 2.0 transition. I've
> > b
Nice one Jiajie :-)
Cheers,
R
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 07:58, Michał Słowikowski
wrote:
>
> Congratulations!
>
> Best regards
> M.
>
> wt., 31 mar 2020, 21:00 użytkownik Xinbin Huang
> napisał:
>
> > Congratulations!
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 11:13 AM Felix Uellendall
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We
I feel some of the stuff for instance Schedular HA could wait for a point
release of version 2 (although maybe this a lot further a long than I am
aware). Like you mentioned Spark did with K8s.
Also does the new API need to be feature complete or just enough
functionality to warrant removing the
woohoo!
+1 none binding
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020, 08:36 Michał Słowikowski, <
michal.slowikow...@polidea.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:13 PM Sid Anand wrote:
>
> > (resending from my apache account .. sorry)
> >
> > +1 Binding
> >
> > Airflow's returning full-circle t
This is brilliant work, thank you! Looking forward to watching my RDS
metrics when this gets deployed :-)
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020, 07:08 Driesprong, Fokko, wrote:
> Sweet work Kamil and others! I'll try to go through them today!
>
> Cheers, Fokko
>
> Op ma 24 feb. 2020 om 22:37 schreef Tao Feng :
>
Hey Vardan,
I also run a system with a large number of DAGs.
Regarding the slowness in the UI there are a few fixes that went into
1.10.7 which reduced the number of DAGs Airflow loads when browsing.
There is also a couple more changes going into the next release (I
hope!) which will speed it up
Feather is probably a good option for data frames:
https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/reference/api/pandas.DataFrame.to_feather.html
R
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 at 07:52, Deng Xiaodong wrote:
>
> Hi David.
>
> The only “out of box” way to share data/information between tasks is XCom (
> htt
+1 (none binding)
Tested Python 3.7 on Postgresql
Thanks for everyones hard work,
Rob
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019, 19:10 Jarek Potiuk, wrote:
> +1 (binding).
>
> Tested:
>
>- Python 3.5 + mysql
>- Python 3.6 + postgres
>- Python 2.7 + postgres
>- Python 2.7 + sqlite
>- I also doub
+1 (none-biding)
Done a nightly run in production on python 3.7 with no issues.
Thanks guys!
R
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 09:31, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding) as I am not PMC member
>
> Tested installation and run airflow locally in several configurations
> (including Python 2.7/3.5). No
+1 (none binding) - been running in production since RC2.
Thanks for all your hard work
R
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 21:15, Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
>
> Thanks for testing.
>
> On 1) everyone should run upgradedb on every upgrade. The behaviour of not
> running it wasn't great.
>
> 2) I thought we
I was wondering if anyone has a pattern for handling look back periods
when ingesting data. One of our sources attributes cost up to 90 days
in arrears. So currently I am ingesting @daily but re-writing the last
90 days with depends_on_past=True on my operator. This feels wrong as
I am effecting da
Yes thanks everyone for their hard work :-)
R
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 18:38, Feng Lu wrote:
>
> Great work, thank you Ash!
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 4:28 PM Beau Barker
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Ash and contributors.
> >
> > > On 12 Apr 2019, at 3:38 am, Gabriel Silk
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Nice w
Hello,
I have an issue with my subdags occasionally getting stuck which seems
to be related to their subtasks being terminated. The subdag task its
self will be marked as failed but the child tasks will be left in the
state 'up_for_retry'. I am using the SequentialExecutor for the SubDag
and the C
23 matches
Mail list logo
