Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

RE: [EXTERNAL][PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - > first step of provider separation > > > *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > the content is sa

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

: [EXTERNAL][PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. I discussed this problem

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

I discussed this problem with Jarek. The group of stakeholders will be open and everyone can join, not just Google employees, etc. Release branches will be maintained in apache/airflow repository. Any non-committer change will still require PR. This means there is no vendor neutrality risk. +1 I

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

BTW. It will also be possible for anyone in the community to cherry-pick changes from main and make a PR (which also a committer will have to approve and merge). This is really no different that we have already done with cherry-picked commits to "v1-10-stable" and "v-2-3-stable" branches by

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

> I think we should continue to be strictly vendor-neutral. No organization should be able to gain special privileges or control a project’s direction. This is strictly vendor-neutral - Kamil - we are going to release the same changes that we are releasing already in main providers, just

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

> We can keep these branches in forks managed by stakeholders teams, but I am afraid of the benefit that it will be then copied by us to our repository and then released by us. If the release was prepared by an external team, I think we should make it clear that it was prepared by another team,

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

> Cherry-picking to branch v2-2* or 1.10.* can only be done by the committers, because only they have write permission to the apache/airflow repository. As far as I know, Github does not allow us to grant write-only permissions to the selected branch. Kamil - you misunderstood it. The branch will

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

+1 -- We have discussed this during the Airflow Summit in-person with Ash, Rafal (and his team), Jarek and I about this for a long time, and I think this is a good step forward. Regards, Kaxil On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 17:26, Kamil Breguła wrote: > I think we should continue to be strictly

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

I think we should continue to be strictly vendor-neutral. No organization should be able to gain special privileges or control a project’s direction. pon., 20 cze 2022 o 18:14 Kamil Breguła napisał(a): > Cherry-picking to branch v2-2* or 1.10.* can only be done by the > committers, because only

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

Cherry-picking to branch v2-2* or 1.10.* can only be done by the committers, because only they have write permission to the apache/airflow repository. As far as I know, Github does not allow us to grant write-only permissions to the selected branch. We can keep these branches in forks managed by

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

> Will the people who maintain the providers' packages have the commiter Nope - similarly as we do in v2-2* or what we did in 1.10.* cherry-picking can be done in separate branches (and in this case in forks). Then the branch can be fast-forwarded by the committer in the "airflow" repo. No

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

Will the people who maintain the providers' packages have the commiter status? I guess it is necessary for people to have write access to the repository and therefore to be able to make cherry-pick changes to the branch. pon., 20 cze 2022 o 09:13 Elad Kalif napisał(a): > > +1 > From my side the

Re: [PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

+1 >From my side the proposal handles all concerns I raised in previous threads. I think mixed-governance is a step in the right direction. On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 1:12 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This is a follow-up after a few discussions started about providers that > were

[PROPOSAL] Provider's mixed governance model - first step of provider separation

Hello everyone, This is a follow-up after a few discussions started about providers that were put on hold around the summit. I held a number of discussions during theSummit and after, and as result I think I have a proposal that can move forward some of the "stalled" decisions we need to make.