I also lean toward allowing it, and removing the configuration sounds good.
Best, Wei > On Aug 22, 2024, at 4:00 AM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > weak allow as well. > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 8:31 PM Oliveira, Niko <oniko...@amazon.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> I don't feel too strongly about this one (I suppose I also lean allow) but >> I agree with removing as many of these configs as possible! So I'm all for >> this one, either way. >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Daniel Standish <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.INVALID> >> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 6:13:31 PM >> To: dev@airflow.apache.org >> Subject: [EXT] [DISCUSS] allow_trigger_in_future setting: keep or chop? >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. >> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez >> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que >> le contenu ne présente aucun risque. >> >> >> >> This setting, which affects scheduler behavior in a few places, seems like >> the type of thing that should not be configurable. >> >> I would propose we either always allow or always don't allow. Does anyone >> remember why we made it configurable? >> >> I don't have a strong feeling re allow or don't, but I guess I lean allow. >> >> Opinions? >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
