Thanks for all the votes! On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 2:59 AM Josh Fell <josh.d.f...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote:
> Absolutely +1 > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 7:20 PM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 binding > > > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 at 15:16, Michał Modras <michalmod...@google.com > > .invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 - let's avoid forcing users to modify their DAGs > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 7:19 PM Vikram Koka > <vik...@astronomer.io.invalid > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (with emphasis) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 5:23 AM Ephraim Anierobi < > > > > ephraimanier...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 binding > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 6:57 AM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 binding > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 9:32 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote doesn't say the release must happen, just that it > can > > > > > happen. > > > > > > > The final decision on when to release is still up to the > release > > > > > manager. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. It's on Ephraim's shoulders to decide :) (No pressure > > > > Ephraim > > > > > ;) > > > > > > > ). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 8:14 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor < > > a...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +100 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote doesn't say the release must happen, just that it > can > > > > > happen. > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > final decision on when to release is still up to the release > > > > manager. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 August 2023 18:36:13 BST, Jarek Potiuk < > ja...@potiuk.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I would like to raise a vote about modifying the result of > > vote > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/4dkbwob1wyl3xjbqdsmbd1mvgzflzp1f. > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >RESTORE dagrun.conf UI option for triggering DAGs in 2.7.0 > > > (which > > > > > > means > > > > > > > > >preparing RC2). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I am writing that in the name of the release-management > > > > "concilium": > > > > > > > > >Ephraim, Hussein, Elad, Jens, Pankaj Koti, Rahul Vats, > myself > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >We discussed it today at the #release-management channel > about > > > the > > > > > > > problem > > > > > > > > >with dagrun.conf functionality removal from 2.7.0 "Trigger > > UI". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/C03G9H97MM2/p1691833923538419 > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > >It's been also raised as concern by Hussein in the original > PR > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >[VOTE] thread for 2.7.0rc1 > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/pc89dh43kmpj267rpospo1lk5j3j6qkl > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I think we all unanimously agree that removal of that > > > > functionality > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >practically breaking change for many of our users, who will > > have > > > > no > > > > > > > choice > > > > > > > > >but to modify their DAGs and add param definitions to their > > DAGs > > > > if > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > >want to continue triggering their DAGs via UI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >While it is a good thing to do and this was the original > > > > intention, > > > > > > > > >to "push" our users in this direction, we realised that we > do > > > not > > > > > give > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >users a viable alternative and that effort required to > rewrite > > > > their > > > > > > > DAGs > > > > > > > > >might be far too much and might be a huge blocker to 2.7 > > > adoption. > > > > > The > > > > > > > > >"push" seems to be rather brutal and forceful, not a gentle > > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >We did not realise this consequence when we - as a > community - > > > > ran > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >previous vote, but we now think releasing 2.7.0 without this > > > > option > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > >cause a lot of problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Since we all share such a unanimous view, we propose (and > > > Ephraim > > > > > is > > > > > > > > going > > > > > > > > >to do so) cancel RC1 and Jens already has PRs that should > > > restore > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >functionality. PR is shortly coming. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >However, that requires modifying the results of the previous > > > vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Consider that my binding +1 vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >We want to accelerate the voting a bit and we also propose > to > > > > > produce > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > >RC2 with the option restored to accelerate the process and > not > > > to > > > > > > delay > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >2.7.0 release too much. I propose this vote to last till 10 > am > > > > > Tuesday > > > > > > > > 26th > > > > > > > > >CEST - that should give enough time for everyone including > > the > > > > > > weekend > > > > > > > > >time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >J. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
