I'm for changing it. How about `db migrate` as the only (non-deprecated) command we keep?
On 27 July 2023 08:01:32 BST, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >Also one comment here: the whole point here is to remove confusion to >the users. If we leave `upgrade` in place, the confusion will remain. >So I think we **SHOULD** change it. This also means we will have to >also re-learn the new command (I know we are all used to 'upgrade"). >So for me, the question is not whether we should change "upgrade" - >but what is the name that will be least confusing to the users :). > >I know it's easiest to "keep things as we are used to" but we. should >rather look at the future users of ours. Maybe we should gather some >options (constructive ideas are welcome) and vote on them ? > >J. > >On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 8:55 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >> >> We can also name it `create-or-ugrade` - a bit awkward but way better >> than upgrade. >> >> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 8:24 AM Akash Sharma <2akash111...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Upgrade gives an idea that existing instance will be upgraded to desired >> > version. The existing instance is spun up by db init ( in the beginning of >> > the process). With init getting deprecated, it would be good to have a >> > command that suggests that db can be created (if doesn't exist) or upgraded >> > (if it does) in the command name itself. >> > >> > Anyway its not a blocker for the above goal. It can be renamed whenever >> > needed. >> > >> > On Thu, 27 Jul 2023, 11:33 Amogh Desai, <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Good idea overall. >> > > I am also aligned towards moving it out of `db` subcommand. I am not >> > > very >> > > much aligned towards using the keyword/action word - `upgrade`. It sets a >> > > different context. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Amogh Desai >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 1:02 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > +1 for moving it under "connections" - good idea. >> > > > >> > > > I think "upgrade" is confusing for the first time because upgrade >> > > > implies "upgrade FROM something". The "sync" is not set-in-stone. >> > > > Maybe there are other ideas? >> > > > >> > > > The inspiration is Terraform - where we describe the "target" state we >> > > > want to reach, so maybe "airflow db apply" is a better one? >> > > > >> > > > J. >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 8:51 PM Jed Cunningham >> > > > <jedcunning...@apache.org >> > > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm not sure I like sync over upgrade, personally. Everything else >> > > > > discussed sounds good though. >> > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >
