Thanks for owning it Rom! +1 from me The common is needed because we have convention where the providers are packed under entity https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/main/airflow/providers
Common isnt new. We already have common.compat, common.io, common.sql Personally I don't mind about the name as long as it is extracted from core. I am also +1 for Ash suggestion about having no operators/sensors in Core. I think all of them should be migratrd to providers. בתאריך יום ד׳, 14 באוג׳ 2024, 16:16, מאת Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org >: > I like the idea, and you beat me to proposing this since in my prototyping > of AIP-72 I realised it would be much much better if 100% of operators et > al were providers. > > One thing in this case though: we shouldn't have `common` in the name as > that should be a convention of saying "this provider is designed for use by > other providers" but in this case it's for direct use in dags. > > -ash > > On 14 August 2024 13:51:42 BST, rom sharon <r...@apache.org> wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I would like to propose a new provider. > > > >*Background* > > > >As noted in the comment on this PR > ><https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/41441>, several operators and > >sensors related to time are currently located in the core of Airflow: > >BranchDayOfWeekOperator, BranchDateTimeOperator, DateTimeSensor, > >TimeDeltaSensor, TimeSensor, and DayOfWeekSensor. > > > >Because these components reside in the core, any modifications to them > >require changes to the Airflow core rather than the providers. > > > >*Suggestion* > > > >I propose creating a new provider, Common.time, to collect all these > >time-related operators and sensors. This would help decouple them from the > >core. > > > >I'm happy to lead this effort and raise a PR. > > > >WDYT? > > > >Rom Sharon >
