Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

The vote has passed with 6 binding +1 votes and no -1 votes. I will proceed with a PR to implement the proposal. Votes: Jarek Potiuk +1 (binding) Arthur Wiedmer +1 (binding) Tomasz Urbaszek +1 (binding) Daniel Standish +1 (binding) Dennis Akpenyi +1 (non-binding) Drew Hubl +1 (non-binding) Josh F

Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

+1 (binding) On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 11:10 PM Collin McNulty wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 2:59 PM Jed Cunningham > wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >

Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

+1 (non-binding) On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 2:59 PM Jed Cunningham wrote: > +1 (binding) >

Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

+1 (binding)

Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

+1 (non-binding) On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:03 PM Drew Hubl wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Feb 4, 2022, at 11:59 AM, Dennis Akpenyi > wrote: > > +1 non-binding > > On Fri 4. Feb 2022 at 20:43, Daniel Standish < > daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > >> I suppose I should vote also...

Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

+1 (non-binding) > On Feb 4, 2022, at 11:59 AM, Dennis Akpenyi wrote: > > +1 non-binding > > On Fri 4. Feb 2022 at 20:43, Daniel Standish > wrote: > I suppose I should vote also... > > +1 binding > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 11:41 AM Tomasz Urbaszek > wrote: > +1

Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

+1 non-binding On Fri 4. Feb 2022 at 20:43, Daniel Standish wrote: > I suppose I should vote also... > > +1 binding > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 11:41 AM Tomasz Urbaszek > wrote: > >> +1 binding. Just please make sure we do point to resources for keeping >> equivalent behaviour. >> >> On Fri, 4 F

Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

I suppose I should vote also... +1 binding On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 11:41 AM Tomasz Urbaszek wrote: > +1 binding. Just please make sure we do point to resources for keeping > equivalent behaviour. > > On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 16:14, Arthur Wiedmer wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022,

Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

+1 binding. Just please make sure we do point to resources for keeping equivalent behaviour. On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 16:14, Arthur Wiedmer wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022, 17:03 Daniel Standish > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I would like to call a vote on the following proposal: >> >> Helpe

Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

+1 (binding) On Thu, Feb 3, 2022, 17:03 Daniel Standish wrote: > Hi > > I would like to call a vote on the following proposal: > > Helper function `days_ago` is to be deprecated (warning of pending removal > with each call) with removal targeted for 3.0. The deprecation warning > should guide u

Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

+1 (binding) just to be precise. On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 1:46 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > +1. I think it's a good idea, that will gently guide our users to change > their (bad) habits in DAG authoring, especially when accompanied with > "equivalent behaviour" explanation. > > J. > > > On Fri, Feb 4,

Re: [VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

+1. I think it's a good idea, that will gently guide our users to change their (bad) habits in DAG authoring, especially when accompanied with "equivalent behaviour" explanation. J. On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 2:03 AM Daniel Standish wrote: > Hi > > I would like to call a vote on the following prop

[VOTE] deprecate days_ago helper function

Hi I would like to call a vote on the following proposal: Helper function `days_ago` is to be deprecated (warning of pending removal with each call) with removal targeted for 3.0. The deprecation warning should guide user and perhaps point to some documentation concerning how to maintain the equ