Hussein I believe the intent is that the provider comes as one unit with Airflow (it will be part of the pre-installed providers like: sqlite, http, ...) so in that spirit is essential.
just to clarify PMC voting -1 is considered veto but the rule is applied to code change, I am not sure what it means for naming https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:15 PM Hussein Awala <huss...@awala.fr> wrote: > -1 on common (I explained why in the discuss thread) > +1 standard > +0 builtin > -0 primary > +1 core > -0 base > -1 shared (same as common) > -1 on essential/s (by definition, essential is a thing that is absolutely > necessary, which is not the case here, a lot of users use Airflow without > the core operators/sensors) > > > Jarek: how about "apache-airflow-provider-essentials" - that will not > limit it to only operators, we could add mixins, triggers, hooks (BaseHook) > and everything else that falls into "essentials" category. > > This might make "essentials" an appropriate name, and I've thought about > it, but since we can't easily move AbstractOperator/BaseOperator, Trigger, > and other models used as base classes to a provider due to the need to > manage migration scripts, is it a good idea to move some of these classes > and make the provider mandatory? Unless you have a suggestion to make > Alembic work with different sources (to also move the future migration > scripts related to the moved models) > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:51 PM Jed Cunningham <jedcunning...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Easy one first: -1 on common > > > > +1 on standard, but also +0.5 on core or essential too. > > >
