+1 binding On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 07:41, Ping Zhang <pin...@umich.edu> wrote:
> +1 binding > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 23:46 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> This is a call for the vote to make an internal change to move the code >> of K8S, Celery and related (LocalKubernetes., CeleryKubernetes etc. ) to >> respective providers. >> >> Consider it +1 (binding) from my side. >> >> This has been discussed in >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kwwhz62lddygodpgr3fk4b9tthtld9do and let >> me summarize it below: >> >> # Why? >> >> Multiple reasons: >> >> * It will make it easier to manage consistency between K8S Pod Manager >> and K8S executor. In the past there were non-trivial dependencies between >> those that resulted in k8s provider being limited to latest airflow versions >> * It's non-obvious that the code used in K8S executor uses two different >> artifacts (airflow and cncnf.k8s provider) and it limits our abilities to >> refactor/modify/improve this code as it has to work with various >> combinations of airflow + cncf.kubernete versions >> * provider's releases (major/minor versions) have much faster release >> cycle and we can both - fix and provide new features to those executors >> * users who have good reasons to not to upgrade to latest airflow >> releases will be able to use latest k8s/celery executors by updating >> providers only >> * if there are regressions with executors in newer airflow versions, >> users will be able to downgrade providers - without downgrading the whole >> airflow (downgrading the DB etc.) >> * this follows the philosophy of Airflow-as-a-platform, where anyone can >> extend Airflow by adding new plugins/providers and moving the executor to >> providers proves the point that anyone can do their own executor and that >> they will have the same capabilities as the ones that are built-in >> >> # Why now? >> >> We are in the process of finishing AIP-51 with executor decoupling and >> where we got rid of the hard-coded behaviour of Airflow depending on what >> executor was used. It was simply impossible before to move the executors to >> providers, because the hard-coded behaviours had to maintain the knowledge >> about which executor is used. Executor's API was incomplete and some >> behaviours of the executors were hard-coded. With AIP-51 completed executor >> implementation can simply rely on the complete executor's API - including >> exposing properties of the executor that can change airflow core behaviour >> appropriately by inspecting the properties. >> >> # Backwards compatibility >> >> I believe we will be able to make it fully backwards compatible with the >> usage of PEP 562 and deprecation notices (same as we did with contrib >> packages). Also we seem to be converging on the >> backwards-compatibility approach, specifically excluding the implementation >> of executors from our "Public API list" >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/d90b1yvsbwzy5flnd3vslfjs38x76kyj >> >> We will turn "cncf.kubernetes" and "celery" providers into >> "pre-installed" providers, which means that one will be able to use all the >> built-in executors with just "pip install airflow" (interestingly enough >> before that one had to install the k8s provider to make the K8s executor >> work even if they were part of the core which was sub-optimal). >> >> Also, resulting from the discussion we will keep documentation for >> available executors in Airflow (so they will still be considered as THE >> executors available and will be discoverable in the same way as today). >> >> # Potential problems >> >> Seems there are no known problems it can cause. There is the question >> "where to put CeleryKubernetesExecutor?" and the proposal is to put it in >> "cncf.k8s" and treat celery as an optional dependency ("celery" extra) of >> "cncf.k8s" provider. Since both providers will be pre-installed, this is >> not a problem or concern for any use case. >> >> J. >> >> -- > > Thanks, > > Ping >
