-1 on common as well, +1 to standard/essentials (non-binding)
--
Regards,
Aritra Basu

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024, 5:03 pm Elad Kalif, <elad...@apache.org> wrote:

> > IMHO this vote is about a code change
>
> Then we will consider PMCs -1 as veto which disqualifies the specific name.
> Looks like standard is the leading option which got enough +1 and no
> vetos but lets see how it proceeds till vote time is closed.
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 2:11 PM Hussein Awala <huss...@awala.fr> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > What about installing Airflow 3 by default without any provider (minimal
> > version), and adding the current default providers to a new extra basic
> or
> > something else?
> >
> > Even if we decide to install it by default as we do with SQLite and HTTP
> > providers, that doesn't make it "essential", where we can use Airflow and
> > create dags without importing from that provider, except if we move some
> of
> > our base classes to this provider, which I challenged in my previous
> email.
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > IMHO this vote is about a code change
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 7:33 AM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 binding on essential/essentials, standard, builtin, primary,
> > > - 0 binding on core, shared, base
> > >
> > > -1 binding on common path
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 12:45 AM Ephraim Anierobi <
> > > ephraimanier...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 standard
> > > > +0 essential/essentials (makes it seem required)
> > > >
> > > > If it were available, I would have chosen the "core-add-on" option.
> It
> > > > gives the feeling that it's a provider that complements the
> > > > core(apache-airflow-providers-core-add-on).
> > > >
> > > > - 1 under common
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 22:12, Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to