Subtasks in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-4733 created and the table of operators is now part of the AIP-21 <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-21%3A+Changes+in+import+paths#AIP-21:Changesinimportpaths-target_groupsTargetgroupingoftheoperators/sensors/hooksintheproviderspackages> ! Feel free to pick those tasks and make the move happen!
J. On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:32 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > So we have now 5 (+1) binding votes: Jarek Potiuk, Kaxil Naik, Felix > Uelendall, Kamil Breguła, Kevin Yang, One (+1) non-binding vote: Tomasz > Urbaszek. > > The vote is "Passed" > > Thank you! It was a long discussion but I think we have a reasonable > approach at the end :). > > I will update the AIP-21 appropriately and we proceed with renaming. A > good deal of that had already happened but I will also create a separate > JIRA with subtasks to move all the subpackages. I will also create an issue > to automate backport package generation (I will likely work on the last one > unless someone wants to take it :). > > J. > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 7:09 PM Kevin Yang <yrql...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com>于2019年11月15日 周五上午10:02写道： >> >> > I am fine with it :) >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 5:25 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I think we should leave all the fundamentals (or 'core') operators >> hooks >> > > etc where they are. I have not even considered moving them. I am ok to >> > have >> > > 'aieflow.operators', 'airflow.hooks', 'airflow.sensors' for those. It >> > feels >> > > natural and having them 'higher' in the tree hierarchy is a good way >> to >> > > show that they are fundamental part of Airflow. >> > > >> > > J >> > > >> > > pt., 15 lis 2019, 16:49 użytkownik Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> >> > > napisał: >> > > >> > > > I just have 1 comment: >> > > > >> > > > Should we have a "*airflow.core*" (or airflow.providers) for all the >> > > > hooks/operators listed under *fundamentals *as I feel we are going >> to >> > > have >> > > > "airflow.providers.gcp", "airflow.providers.amazon", >> > > > "airflow.providers.apache"? >> > > > >> > > > What do you all think? Maybe it is not necessary but just wanted to >> see >> > > > what you all think? >> > > > >> > > > In general, I am happy with this: +1 (binding) >> > > > >> > > > Regards, >> > > > Kaxil >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:42 PM Felix Uellendall >> > <felue...@pm.me.invalid >> > > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > +1 (binding) >> > > > > >> > > > > Felix >> > > > > >> > > > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:46, Kamil Breguła < >> > > kamil.breg...@polidea.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > +1 (binding) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > All my comments were taken into account during the discussion. >> I am >> > > > > happy now. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:37 PM Jarek Potiuk < >> > > > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Some binding votes here please :) ? >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> J. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:25 PM Tomasz Urbaszek < >> > > > > tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> >> > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > +1 (non-binding) >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Bests, >> > > > > >> > Tomek >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:57 PM Jarek Potiuk < >> > > > > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> >> > > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > The email calls for a 2nd attempt to [VOTE] an update to >> > AIP-21 >> > > > > Changes >> > > > > >> > in >> > > > > >> > > import paths >> > > > > >> > > < >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-21%3A+Changes+in+import+paths >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > with >> > > > > >> > > the changes described below. The vote will last till Friday >> > 15th >> > > > > 5pm CEST >> > > > > >> > > (72 hours). >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > Committers have a binding vote but everyone from the >> community >> > > is >> > > > > >> > > encouraged to cast an advisory vote. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > *Summary*: >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > The proposal is to update AIP-21 to move all non-core >> > > > > >> > > operators/hooks/sensor (and related files) to "providers" >> > > package. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > Those packages will be separately released >> (schedule/process >> > > TBD) >> > > > > and >> > > > > >> > will >> > > > > >> > > be backportable to 1.10.* airflow series, so that users can >> > > > install >> > > > > it >> > > > > >> > and >> > > > > >> > > start using new Airflow2.0 operators in their Python 3 >> Airflow >> > > > 1.10 >> > > > > >> > > environments (only Python 3.5+ is supported). >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > The proposed split is documented in detail in >> > > > > https://docs.google.com/ >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > spreadsheets/d/17zA5t2JVxnDdg5Cs1Cg_Mb1GXvGctmesfg2L089QSOk/edit#gid=0 >> > > > > >> > > < >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17zA5t2JVxnDdg5Cs1Cg_Mb1GXvGctmesfg2L089QSOk/edit#gid=0 >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > Once we get the proposal accepted, I will update AIP-21 to >> > > reflect >> > > > > all >> > > > > >> > that >> > > > > >> > > and move the proposed split to CWiki. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > Discussion concerning the first vote (and changes discussed >> > and >> > > > > >> > > implemented) can be found here: >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2c9559184045e772acd21cbdd7435f6bf89c76eb9311311d58d16e5f@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > Consider this my +1 (binding) vote. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > J. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > -- >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > Jarek Potiuk >> > > > > >> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software >> > > Engineer >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > > > > >> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > -- >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Tomasz Urbaszek >> > > > > >> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software >> Engineer >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493> >> > > > > >> > E: tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com <tomasz.urbasz...@polidea.com >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Unique Tech >> > > > > >> > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> -- >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Jarek Potiuk >> > > > > >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software >> Engineer >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > > > > >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
