I agree with Maciej's rationale here and inclined towards removing it straight away.
Also, is it the case that users have discovered this flag themselves without us documenting it anywhere as a feature to use? *We have a leading underscore for the variable and it hints that it's for internal use.* I would be up for failing the image without any deprecation/warning if we have not documented it as a feature to use. On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, 03:16 Oliveira, Niko, <oniko...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: > I'd vote for a period of time with warnings (either in the logs and/or in > the Airflow UI), as a deprecation warning of sorts. Followed by removing > the feature later on, unless we find that the warnings are enough to lower > the operational load this causes us, but I think that's unlikely. > > Cheers, > Niko > > ________________________________ > From: Jed Cunningham <jedcunning...@apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:05:01 AM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [DISCUSS] Preventing users from misusing > _PIP_ADDITIONAL_REQUIREMENTS ? > > 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. > > > > I also don't like the 10 minute thing. I'd rather we remove it, or display > a message like we do sequential executor (we can only do so much, this is > as visible as we can make it really), I think in that order? >
