is to become a reality, Backfills need to be handled
> by
> > > the
> > > Airflow Scheduler as a normal DAG execution
> > >
> > > I think it's a good idea.
> > > It should solve natively problems like
> > > https://github.com/apache/airflow
Internal API covers the interaction
between the Airflow workers and Airflow metadatabase for heartbeat
information, persisting XComs, and so on.
--
Best regards,
Vikram Koka, Ash Berlin-Taylor, Kaxil Naik, and Constance Martineau
Agree that there were many excellent nominations, but my vote goes to
#39336
Vikram
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:11 PM Wei Lee wrote:
> Hard to choose only one, but my vote goes to #39336.
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> > On May 29, 2024, at 4:45 AM, Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) <
>
and
-
Return the failure status to the invoking API as a key task in the DAG
has failed (inc upstream_failed etc.), rather than waiting for DagRun
completion (i.e waiting for teardown task completion).
---
Best regards,
Vikram Koka, Ash Berlin-Taylor, Kaxil Naik, and Constance Martineau
include at least:
-
Making the Airflow Scheduler responsible for scheduling decisions on all
DagRuns (instead of the current where it purposefully ignores backfill runs)
-
A new API endpoint to submit a "backfill request".
--
Best regards,
Vikram Koka, Ash Berlin-Taylor, Kaxil Naik, and Constance Martineau
I agree with Jarek and Ash on this.
I believe that the AIP as written documents the “what” and the “why” very
well, but is too light on the “how”.
I very much would like to see this AIP become reality as well, but I
believe that we need some foundational elements such as API-44 and the
“task
Definitely a fast moving thread on the mailing list. I haven’t been able to
respond for a few days and feel very far behind already.
A few comments on topics discussed the last few days:
- Jarek, in response to your comments around being more aggressive than in
Airflow 2 about deprecation and
; > the explanation of Vikram I still don't have a clue what we want to
> > accomplish there :-P.
> >
> > I would like to see a mantra or team for Airflow 3. That helps nudging
> > people in the same direction. Suggestions in the comments.
> >
> > Bolke
> &
Good point Jed.
I responded back to your comment in the doc as well and very open to
changing the term in the doc.
Used the term "interactive DAG run" as the ability to invoke or trigger a
DAG run through the API, with the expectation of getting back a result
immediately. An alternate term could
A wonderful and exciting Saturday morning discussion!
Thank you Jarek for bringing the offline conversations into the mailing
list.
I completely agree on the necessity of Airflow 3.
I also agree that Gen AI is the trigger i.e. the answer to "Why now"?
Having been thinking about this for a while
Agree with your assessment Jarek, and that we don't have to do anything
here.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:29 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Hello here,
>
> I've raised the discussion on private@ and it seems that there are no
> private/controversies there, so I bring the discussion to devlist where it
Awesome! Congratulations Wei!
Very well deserved. A tremendous amount of contributions in a
relatively short time!
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 2:27 PM Oliveira, Niko
wrote:
> Congrats Wei! Well deserved :)
>
>
> From: Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) .INVALID>
>
+1 binding
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 6:19 PM Mehta, Shubham
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding).
>
> Shubham
>
> On 2024-03-25, 5:10 PM, "Wei Lee" weilee...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can
-1
As much as I would like to see this removed, I feel the same way as Jed
above.
In response to the question raised regarding "Experimental features", the
reason why this one seems different is because though this was marked as
"experimental", it was the only way to interact with Airflow before
Very cool, Great to see this come together especially after all the
challenges last week!
Thanks to the team who pulled this together!
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 7:27 PM Amogh Desai
wrote:
> Awesome! 朗
>
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 1:35 AM, Bolke de Bruin wrote:
>
> > 拾
> >
> > B.
> >
> > Sent from
Thanks for sharing.
This is exciting news and I'm happy to see this!
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 10:40 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I wanted to share some news (not so much news for us but - it's just now
> reached publication stage) that we have nice security / release process
>
+1 (Binding)
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:20 AM Wei Lee wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:44 PM Vincent Beck wrote:
>
> > +1 binding
> >
> > On 2023/10/25 13:32:49 Pierre Jeambrun wrote:
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > Le mer. 25 oct. 2023 à 13:29, Pankaj
Congratulations Pankaj Koti and Amogh Desai!
Very well deserved!
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:32 AM Shubham Raj
wrote:
> Congratulations Amogh and Pankaj. It’s great.
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 at 10:27 AM, utkarsh sharma
> wrote:
>
> > Congratulations @Pankaj and @Amogh :)
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Sep
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 8:09 AM Josh Fell
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 8:35 AM Ankit Chaurasia
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> > *Ankit Chaurasia*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 5:47 PM Phani Kumar
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (non-binding)
Awesome!
Great work team, this is definitely one of the biggest new Airflow
releases!
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 9:16 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Great!
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 6:08 PM Ephraim Anierobi <
> ephraimanier...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Airflow community,
> >
> > I'm happy to
+1 (with emphasis)
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 5:23 AM Ephraim Anierobi
wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 6:57 AM Elad Kalif wrote:
>
> > +1 binding
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 9:32 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> >
> > > > The vote doesn't say the release must happen, just that it
Not trying to hold up the release, but I thought there was a "race
condition" bug discovered with the Celery executor as a provider and
Airflow main.
Is that resolved now?
Or, did I mistake the origin of that?
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 8:19 AM Beck, Vincent
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding). I tested
I am a little torn on this, but with the separation already in place, I
would also vote for option (a).
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 1:48 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis
wrote:
> Pretty unanimous so far, but I'll also say [a]. If the intent is to be
> executor/service agnostic then this makes the most sense
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for bringing this up. This is definitely on my radar and part of
a larger AIP which I have been in the process of writing up.
We have thought of this use case and deliberately deferred it in the
earlier AIP. Doing is definitely quite complex and I think it needs a
couple of
+1 for #31123.
Great work @pierrejeambrun
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 8:33 AM Wei Lee wrote:
> +1 for #31123
>
> > On Jun 29, 2023, at 11:14 PM, Phani Kumar
> >
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for #31123
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Jun 2023, 20:28 Kaxil Naik, wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for #31123
> >>
> >> On Thu, 29
Congratulations to all of you!
Great work and very well deserved!
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 1:43 PM Pierre Jeambrun
wrote:
> Great news!!! Congratulations
>
> On Wed 28 Jun 2023 at 18:40, Ankit Chaurasia wrote:
>
> > Congrats
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:09 PM
Awesome! Congratulations Pankaj Singh!
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:37 PM Oliveira, Niko
wrote:
> Woo! Congrats Prankaj!
>
>
> From: Ankit Chaurasia
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 3:12:42 PM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL][ANNOUNCE] New
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 6:37 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 at 14:54, Jed Cunningham
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > Checked signatures, checksums, licences. Used it with the helm chart
> with a
> > few different configs
> >
>
What a great set of PRs to choose from.
Amazing work everyone!
So hard to choose, but my vote goes for 29413 - looks lovely!
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:52 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
> One more for 29413
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 16:15, Jed Cunningham
> wrote:
>
> > Another for 29413.
> >
>
Excellent!
Congratulations Pierre, very well deserved!
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 10:55 AM Oliveira, Niko
wrote:
> Congrats Pierre, well deserved!
>
>
> From: Kaxil Naik
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 2:47:31 AM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> Subject: RE:
Awesome! Congratulations Brent, well deserved!
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:10 PM Pierre Jeambrun
wrote:
> Congratulations Brent, well deserved :)
>
> Le mer. 15 mars 2023 à 18:55, Oliveira, Niko
> a écrit :
>
> > Congrats Brent!!
> >
> >
> > From: Jorrick
+1 to #27758 as well, people have really wanted that!
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 3:20 PM Pierre Jeambrun
wrote:
> +1 to #27758, this is really cool!
>
> Le ven. 24 févr. 2023 à 23:55, Jed Cunningham
> a écrit :
>
>> +1 to #27758
>>
>
Thanks Jarek, for resolving this quickly.
I agree that it is important to figure out a plan and next steps here
before the next release for sure.
Will sync and get back.
Vikram
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 6:28 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> The temporary fix worked - for now. The < 1.10.15 docs are
+1 binding
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 12:04 PM Mehta, Shubham
wrote:
> + 1 non-binding
>
>
>
> *From: *Elad Kalif
> *Reply-To: *"dev@airflow.apache.org"
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 10:44 AM
> *To: *"dev@airflow.apache.org"
> *Subject: *RE: [EXTERNAL][VOTE] Move K8S / Celery (and
Shubham and Vincent,
Let me start by saying that I apologize for my delayed response to your
original email.
I appreciate the detailed write-up and the thought behind it. I completely
agree with your use case and understand how this is applicable to
enterprises with multiple data teams using
+1 binding.
I have been looking at the doc and having lineage integrated with Airflow
as a provider makes sense to me.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 2:38 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
> +1 binding , this should make lineage a first-class citizen for Airflow
> users. Excited for this one
>
> On Sun, 12 Feb
+1 binding
Vikram
On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 11:23 AM Ping Zhang wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ping
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 11:22 AM Ephraim Anierobi <
> ephraimanier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 binding
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 19:55, Frank Cash wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
Congratulations Niko!
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 10:31 AM Andrey Anshin
wrote:
> Congrats Niko!
>
>
> Best Wishes
> *Andrey Anshin*
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 at 19:01, Beck, Vincent
> wrote:
>
>> Congrats Niko!!
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Pankaj Singh
>> *Reply-To:
David,
Great to hear this interest regarding integration with Airflow and happy to
help guide as well.
Similar to XD, I would very much like to understand both the user base
sizing and areas of interest from an integration standpoint.
>From your perspective, at the risk of repeating both XD and
+1 to the comments.
Very useful digest.
I really like this edition of the newsletter! Good work!
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 6:30 AM Michael Robinson
wrote:
> Thank you so much and glad you are liking the newsletter! FYI: I’ve been
> shipping it lately, but producing it is a team effort with Ross
Congratulations Pierre! Very well deserved
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 8:35 AM Josh Fell
wrote:
> Here here! Congrats Pierre!
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 8:10 AM Brent Bovenzi
> wrote:
>
>> Congratulations Pierre! Very much well deserved!
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 3:51 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
Congratulations Daniel! Very well deserved!
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 12:57 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Hello Airflow Community,
>
> I have the pleasure to announce that The Project Management Committee (PMC)
> for Apache Airflow has invited Daniel Standish to become Apache Airflow
> PMC Member and
Congratulations TP! Very well deserved!
Vikram
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 12:55 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Hello Airflow Community,
>
> I have the pleasure to announce that The Project Management Committee (PMC)
> for Apache Airflow has invited Tzu-ping Chung to become Apache Airflow PMC
> Member
+1
Tested the Data Dependency Management and Data Driven Scheduling (defined
in AIP-48), with Datasets created and configured as dependencies between
DAGs.
Tested the DAG triggering using these.
Also tested the new Datasets View and the updated Dag Dependencies View.
This looks amazing and so
If I can vote twice it would be for: 25610 and 25888.
Hard to choose between them, they are both really good and critical
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 10:00 AM Jeambrun Pierre
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I really love the new graph view for the datasets.
>
> My vote goes to 25707.
>
> Best,
> Pierre
>
>
Hi Ping,
Conceptually, I have a similar reaction to Jarek and Tomek above, but I
really want to understand the problem you have described with (2) before I
comment further.
Can you please elaborate on the problems:
Airflow 2.0 treats all DagRuns with the same scheduling priority (see code
ert when robots.txt was being scanned, which was
>>>> great, because I ignored it for a while, but eventually caved and looked
>>>> into it. This I would see as more of the same. I currently get loads of
>>>> warnings about things in my config file that have mov
+1 on this approach with this approach in the PR
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/25542
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 12:40 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Love it.
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 9:28 PM Jed Cunningham
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, coming to this a little late. I tend to agree with Elad that we
+1
Similar view to Jed. I view this as adding a feature, rather than
breaking compatibility.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 3:20 PM Jed Cunningham
wrote:
> +1. I view it as adding a feature vs breaking compatibility.
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 4:15 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis
> wrote:
>
>> I definitely like
> Deprecating schedule_interval, it would be more prominent than some
>>>>> other deprecations because it's a DAG param. That said, I think it's
>>>>> pretty
>>>>> straightforward to handle. For one, it's at the cardinality of DAG and not
>>>>> *task*, so there
-1 from me.
Though I agree in principle with the idea of consolidation, I don't think
we should be doing this yet until we understand the implications
completely.
I am really not in favor of deprecation of the existing params, unless
there is really no alternative.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 2:37
like the idea of segmenting the release notes for different groups.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ping
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 8:50 PM Vikram Koka
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> As I have been looking through the recent AIPs, development features, and
>> ma
t
> breaking a lot of compatibility so we can deprecate it even now (and
> we can raise warnings and mention that it will be replaced by
> something better). I believe - for example - this was a mistake not
> doing that with "experimental" API early enough which got more people
> u
- resending below to keep the same thread as Ping's response. My
prior response and Ping's were sent at the same time, but I did not two two
email threads --
I understand the frustration with the SLA feature as it stands.
I struggled with trying to understand this early on and finally understood
I understand the frustration with the SLA feature as it stands.
I struggled with trying to understand this early on and finally understood
how they were broken.
Having said that, I believe that Airflow users strongly care about the
timeliness and consequently SLAs of their data. I also believe
And even more importantly,
+1 for the voting process and especially for the write-in element! :D
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:15 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Too late :D. But it seems we could have two winners :)
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 8:32 AM Rajath Srinivasaiah
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for #24284
>>
Hi everyone,
As I have been looking through the recent AIPs, development features, and
mailing list discussions, it struck me that we have effectively three
different audiences here for Airflow.
1. Individuals and small teams using Airflow for their purpose,
2. Enterprises managing Airflow for
re about "begin executing" and
>> how you calculate "its dependencies have been met.".
>>
>>
>>
>> If the 'begin executing' means the state of ti becomes running, then the
>> 'Scheduling Delay' metric focuses on the overhead introduced
Also voting in favor of #24249 :)
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:19 AM Abhishek Bhakat
wrote:
> I also vote in favor of #24249
>
> On 28-Jun-2022 at 7:28:55 PM, Phani Kumar
> wrote:
>
>> I also vote for 24249 :)
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:23 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>>
>>> Let the fight begin
metric you are proposing seems to be
addressing a somewhat different need.
That's what I am trying to understand.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:24 AM Vikram Koka wrote:
> Ping,
>
> I am quite interested in this topic and trying to understand the
> difference between the "scheduling delay" m
Ping,
I am quite interested in this topic and trying to understand the difference
between the "scheduling delay" metric articulated as compared to the "task
latency" aka "task lag" metric which we have been using before.
As you may recall, we have been using two specific metrics to
benchmark
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 10:49 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 7:47 PM Jed Cunningham
> wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> I'm looking forward to this, thanks Ash.
>>
>
>
> >>> The documentation is available at:
> >>> https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/2.3.0/
> >>>
> >>> Find the release notes here for more details:
> >>>
> https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/2.3.0/release_notes.html
>
+1 (non-binding)
Dynamic Task Mapping is a huge improvement!
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 11:34 AM Josh Fell
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Dynamic Task Mapping feels life-changing.
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 12:41 PM Abhishek Bhakat
> wrote:
>
>> Other than that issue, have tested the version and
+1
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:01 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 at 21:17, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 10:12 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>
>>> So Kubernetes 1.20 has now reached end of life in the upstream project,
>>> and as
+1
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 12:54 PM Cong Zhu wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 12:47 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 at 20:37, Yingbo Wang wrote:
>>
>>> +1(non-binding)
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 12:29 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>>>
+! (binding)
+1
I really like the road to committership perspective on this as well!
I also like the suggestion of a periodic (ideally automated) clean up of
this list for inactive users and committers as well.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> +1. That will be a huge one and actually
Congratulations and welcome Malthe!
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 9:22 AM Daniel Standish
wrote:
> Congrats Malthe!
>
>>
Congratulations and Welcome Josh!
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 9:21 AM Daniel Standish
wrote:
> Congrats!
>
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 5:11 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
>> Congratulations Josh, welcome aboard
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 07:38, Ephraim Anierobi
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Congratulations Josh!
>>>
en" PRs.
>>>>
>>>> I propose that we change our approach and whenever we see a "red"
>>>> build every committer's approach should be :
>>>>
>>>> * investigate the root cause
>>>> * if it's main - attempt to fix it
Congratulations Jed, very well deserved indeed!
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 9:39 AM Ryan Hamilton
wrote:
> Congrats Jed!
>
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:36 PM Xiaodong Deng wrote:
>
>> Congrats, Jed!
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 18:35 Elad Kalif wrote:
>>
>>> Congratulations Jed!
>>>
>>> On Tue,
+1 (binding)
Great work on the AIP, really looking forward to seeing this happen!
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:41 AM Brent Bovenzi
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:21 AM Ry Walker wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>> can’t wait to see this elegant AIP materialize!
>>
>>
>> On
Thanks Jed, this is a huge release!
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 8:52 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Wohoo
>
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 9:20 PM Jed Cunningham
> wrote:
>
>> Hey fellow Airflowers,
>>
>> I have cut Airflow 2.2.0 RC1. This email is calling a vote on the
>> release, which will last for 72
Congratulations Elad and Ephraim!!
Very well deserved indeed!
Vikram
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 7:35 AM Jiajie Zhong
wrote:
> Congratulations! Ephraim and Elad! Well deserved!
>
> Best Wish
> — Jiajie
>
>
>
Congratulations Brent! Very well deserved!
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 3:28 PM Jed Cunningham
wrote:
> Congrats Brent
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 2:16 PM Tomasz Urbaszek
> wrote:
>
>> Congrats Brent!
>
>
+1 from me.
I would love to get some templates in place for pre-classification of
issues.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 2:01 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> I believe Beta is just "subject to change" but generally available. I
> think the "public preview" is something that needs to be enabled for an
>
Congratulations Aneesh!
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:34 AM Elad Kalif wrote:
> Congrats! Welcome aboard :)
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 5:23 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
>> Congratulations!
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 3:29 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Airflow Community,
>>>
>>> The Project
Congratulations Jed and TP!
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 6:57 PM Xinbin Huang wrote:
> Congrats! Well deserved!
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 6:12 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
>> Hello Airflow Community,
>>
>> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Airflow
>> has invited *Jed Cunningham *&
+1
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 6:49 AM Jake Ferriero
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:09 PM Paola Peraza Calderon
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:53 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> śr., 2 cze 2021, 23:03 użytkownik Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
>>> aizha...@apache.org>
Awesome!
Thank you Ash, James Timmins and everyone else who contributed to this
release.
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 8:04 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Cool!
>
>
> pt., 21 maj 2021, 15:29 użytkownik Ash Berlin-Taylor
> napisał:
>
>> Dear Airflow community,
>>
>> I'm happy to announce that Airflow
Awesome!
Great job Kaxil and everyone who contributed to this!
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:47 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Dear Airflow community,
>
> I am pleased to announce that we have released the first version of the
> official *Apache Airflow Helm chart 1.0.0* last night
>
> The source
Jarek,
Thanks for bringing this up and vehemently agreed on the need for this.
Elad, great start with the PR. I think we can all add comments to the PR
and get it published as soon as possible.
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 2:50 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Nice, I think the PR is a good start, we should
+1 (binding)
Great work on this Andrew, looking forward to seeing this happen!
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 7:24 AM Tomasz Urbaszek
wrote:
> +1 binding - love the idea!
>
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 10:40, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 10:29 AM Ash
Thanks Andrew for the detailed responses and Jarek for the great questions.
I really like the AIP and love the direction.
Vikram
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:27 AM Andrew Godwin
wrote:
> Yup, logging and metrics are something I didn't put in the prototype but I
> consider an essential part of
Hey everyone,
I would like to remind whoever is interested to help in the Airflow Issue
Triage process that we
have our call tomorrow (Wednesday).
*Date*: April 14th
*Time*: 8.30-9.30 AM Pacific / 4.30 PM GMT
*Zoom link*:
Awesome!
Congratulations to both of you!
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:27 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy
wrote:
> Congratulations to both of you! Looking forward to seeing more
> contributions :)
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 9:26 PM Xinbin Huang wrote:
>
>> Thank you all! Looking forward to making the
+1
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:24 PM Xinbin Huang wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:08 PM Tomasz Urbaszek
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 at 00:59, Daniel Imberman
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 3:54 PM, Ryan Hamilton <
>>
Hello everyone,
I apologize for the inconvenience, but I have to reschedule the Airflow
Issue Triage process meeting from this Wednesday to next week. I hope that
works for you.
In the meantime, here is an update on the metrics from last week.
- *Issue metrics: *
- The results on "bugs"
Sumit,
Thank you for bringing up this discussion.
Reading through the thread, I am definitely far more comfortable with the
hybrid approach proposed by Kaxil, than the first approach, primarily
because of the same concerns articulated by Jarek regarding end user
experience. Prior to that, I was
Hello everyone,
Here is the summary of our meeting earlier this week.
Thank you all who joined the call, really appreciate your participation and
you taking the time! Please correct anything that I missed.
To all those who did not join, please voice your opinion if you disagree
with anything.
+1
Would love to get additional help on triaging issues and features too :)
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:18 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 5:20 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
>> +1 -- I have no issues with that. I will wait for the end of today to see
>> if anyone has any issues
Hey everyone,
I would like to remind whoever is interested to help in the Airflow Issue
Triage process that we
have our call in about an hour.
*Date*: March 24th
*Time*: 8.30-9.30 AM Pacific / 4.30 PM GMT
*Zoom link*:
https://astronomer.zoom.us/j/91979682731?pwd=bWNoTFM3ajRidUlzL25RMXZ4WU96Zz09
+1 binding
Really good work on this James and Ash. Looking forward to seeing you take
shape.
Best regards,
Vikram
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 2:43 PM Ryan Hamilton
wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding).
>>
>> This looks awesome, good work
Hello everyone,
I have to cancel the Airflow issue triage process call for later today. I
cancelled the meeting invite on the dev calendar earlier today, but wanted
to send the email out to make sure that everyone was aware.
Apologies for the late notice.
Best regards,
Vikram
I agree with *Batch vs Ad-hoc *and *Frequency.*
For doc-only changes, I would prefer NOT to change the version. Primarily
because of the end user perspective, as was articulated earlier in the
thread.
Best regards,
Vikram
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 6:05 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Fully agree
I love the thoughtful discussion.
I am in favour of (b), because that is the "general understanding" of
Semantic Versioning.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 6:14 PM Kaxil Naik wrote:
> Interesting points, reminds me of this thread:
> https://github.com/semver/semver/issues/411#issuecomment-347050750
Kevin,
I am not sure I understand your response to Nathan.
I agree that it is also a valid use case, but I don't see how it can be
cleanly done while keeping TaskGroup only as a UI concept.
Would this require extending the TaskGroup concept to the backend?
Best regards,
Vikram
On Fri, Mar 5,
Hey Kevin,
One immediate clarifying question:
- For your use case, it seems that you want to continue using TaskGroup
only as a "pure UI concept".
- But, you want it's representation to also be in the Tree View.
- You are not proposing any "execution or scheduling" enhancements [again
for your
Ryan and Brent,
Great job on the AIP and looking forward to seeing this happen.
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 8:16 AM Redwan Rahman
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 10:31 AM Ryan Hamilton
> wrote:
>
>> Team,
>>
>> This email calls for a vote on the project
Hey everyone,
Here is the summary of our meeting last week.
Thank you all who joined the call, really appreciate your participation and
you taking the time! Please correct anything that I missed.
To all those who did not join, please voice your opinion if you disagree
with anything.
Overall
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
