Thanks everyone.
I proposed a PR that completes the lifecycle description of providers :
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35277 - once there are some comments
and initial approvals/consensus, I will start a separate `[VOTE]` thread on
it. In the meantime I will start `[LAZY CONSENSUS]` on
Seems reasonable to me!
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 7:28 AM Wei Lee wrote:
> +1
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:36 AM, Utkarsh Sharma <
> utkarsh.sha...@astronomer.io.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for the implementing the process, have little clue about the
> provider. :)
> >
> > Thanks,
>
+1
Best,
Wei
> On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:36 AM, Utkarsh Sharma
> wrote:
>
> +1 for the implementing the process, have little clue about the provider. :)
>
> Thanks,
> Utkarsh Sharma
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 10:59 PM Pierre Jeambrun
> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Le ven. 27 oct. 2023 à 19:16,
+1 for the implementing the process, have little clue about the provider. :)
Thanks,
Utkarsh Sharma
On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 10:59 PM Pierre Jeambrun wrote:
>
> +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.
+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
> >
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
> provider if needed. +1
>
> On 2023/10/27 09:00:25 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > I
I like that. I also think it is important to have a process to remove provider
if needed. +1
On 2023/10/27 09:00:25 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > I think in the case of Qubole it is pretty easy to remove it from the
> provider codebase. I'm pretty sure that almost no one even noticed this
> removal.
>
> I think in the case of Qubole it is pretty easy to remove it from the
provider codebase. I'm pretty sure that almost no one even noticed this
removal.
Yeah. Agree. This one is pretty "obvious" that's why I would like to create
a process for doing it along the way so that in the future if we
>
>
> I suggest also removing it from pypi for security reasons. If there is a
> security issue with it then the issue will remain with us.
>
>
I am quite sure we still have to handle security issues if someone finds
them. releasing such a provider will still be possible using the tag/branch
and
I think in the case of Qubole it is pretty easy to remove it from the
provider codebase. I'm pretty sure that almost no one even noticed this
removal.
Best Wishes
*Andrey Anshin*
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 23:06, Bolke de Bruin wrote:
> I suggest also removing it from pypi for security
I suggest also removing it from pypi for security reasons. If there is a
security issue with it then the issue will remain with us.
B.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 26 Oct 2023, at 20:20, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
> Hello Airflow community,
>
> How do we feel about removing the Qubole provider
Hello Airflow community,
How do we feel about removing the Qubole provider completely (leaving only
old releases in PyPI?
On September 1 2023 (
https://lists.apache.org/thread/p394d7w7gc7lz61g7qdthl96bc9kprxh) the
Qubole operator ws suspended.
Due to the reasons described in the thread (Qubole
12 matches
Mail list logo
