I agree that we should exclude providers that block us.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 9:58 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis <ferru...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: > I don't have any issue with this in general, in fact I think it's not a > bad idea to trim out older unused/unmaintained providers. But what are the > criteria for marking a provider package as unmaintained? Is it simply > "once a package becomes a blocker AND nobody has stepped up to fix it in > [two weeks?]". Also, to clarify, "unmaintained" in this context isn't > going to prevent current users from using it, it's just a notation > indicating that nobody is actively updating/upgrading it, correct? > > > - ferruzzi > > > ________________________________ > From: Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 7:11 AM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org; Daniel Standish > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL][DISCUSS] Exclude some providers that hold us back > from releasing > > 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. > > > > Yeah agreed. > > Each provider should be treated like a separate project/release - it's > just that we batch up releases to save time of the release manager. > > -a > > On 28 March 2023 07:05:13 BST, Daniel Standish > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.INVALID> wrote: > >It seems reasonable to me. > > > >On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 12:02 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello Everyone, > >> > >> TL;DR; I wanted to raise a discussion and make a proposal about option > >> to skip some niche providers of our from releasing if they are holding > >> us back, regarding the dependencies > >> > >> We are going through some troubles with dependencies of our providers > >> - mostly around some outdated dependencies which are used for some - > >> often niche - providers of ours. We mitigated the problem for a while > >> but now when Google team is working on a major bump of all the > >> dependencies of google provider: > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/30067 we have some other > >> non-google providers that holds us back from upgrading those. This is > >> mainly about the protobuf dependency (all the new google dependencies > >> will have protobuf > 4 and there are few dependencies that have > >> protobuf < 4. > >> > >> There are few ways we can deal with this in the order of approach: > >> > >> 1) we can replace dependencies with other dependencies which have the > >> problem removed > >> 2) we can (and we do) raise the issue with the respective dependencies > >> 3) If the feature, the provider depends on is somewhat optional - we > >> can make it so > >> 4) finally if those are not successful we can disable the provider > >> from further releases (until the problem is fixed) > >> > >> The first 3 are not really something we need to decide on specifically > >> (and we are going to individually work on fixing those if possible). > >> > >> But I have a question, if we are ok to apply 4) > >> > >> Good example to look at is yandex provider - I just opened an issue > >> for it whether they are planning to lift the limit to protobuf: > >> https://github.com/yandex-cloud/python-sdk/issues/71 I think if we do > >> not get a response and update in a few days/week we might need to > >> disable the provider from next releases and testing. This is just an > >> example, we might have other cases similar, I just wanted to discuss > >> our approach there. > >> > >> What I propose is that in this case: > >> > >> a) we deliberately mark the provider as not maintained any more (that > >> will include documentation update markingi it so > >> > >> b) we remove it from contributing to our dependencies and generating > >> our constraints > >> > >> c) we stop running any tests with it > >> > >> d) old relasess will of course remain and the users will be able to > >> use it for as long as they will be able to keep it conflict-free (but > >> our constraints will not help with it) > >> > >> This will help us to move forward with some dependencies, but not > >> being held-back by them. > >> > >> WDYT? > >> > >> J. > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > >> > >> >
