I like agent too
On 27 August 2024 16:44:40 BST, Daniel Standish <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.INVALID> wrote: >If we're looking for alternatives, does the word "agent" work? > >On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 8:41 AM Daniel Standish < >daniel.stand...@astronomer.io> wrote: > >> Personally I don't mind remote executor. We need to keep in mind that >> this is not just naming the executor but the provider and all the other >> related objects. >> >> E.g. in #41729 you have these objects >> >> from airflow.providers.remote.models.remote_job import RemoteJob >>> from airflow.providers.remote.models.remote_logs import RemoteLogs >>> from airflow.providers.remote.models.remote_worker import RemoteWorker >> >> >> I sorta feel the reverse that distributed is better way to describe in >> docs and remote is maybe better for this executor-worker system. >> >> Distributed is a mode of execution that would apply to both remote >> executor and celery and k8s executor and ecs. Remote tells you something >> specific about the way it is distributed. E.g. it's in a far off corner of >> your corporate vpn :) >> >> I also don't feel super persuaded by the notion that remote is too broadly >> used and understood by the community. I personally did not know that our >> distributed executor systems were described this way in the docs until it >> was brought to the attention of the list. >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 8:29 AM Oliveira, Niko <oniko...@amazon.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> As you'd expect Jens I also vote +1 for distributed :) >>> >>> Remote as it means today is not only in our docs but in our previous >>> summit talks, town halls, Github Issues/Discussions, Slack threads, etc. >>> It's a term we've used as a community for years. So we should not change >>> all that under the feet of our users just because it is difficult to find a >>> new name for AIP-69. I think distributed is good for this new feature, but >>> I am also curious to see if anyone has other proposals. >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 7:53:27 AM >>> To: dev@airflow.apache.org >>> Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] Name for the Executor of AIP-69 >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> Distributed makes more sense to me. +1 binding on this one. Remote >>> executor is too broad to me >>> >>> On 2024/08/27 14:43:33 Jarek Potiuk wrote: >>> > I prefer distributed - as Remote executor is already a well-established >>> > term. But this is -0.5 on "remote" - if others think it's ok, I am fine. >>> > >>> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 3:33 PM Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) >>> > <jens.scheff...@de.bosch.com.invalid> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi Airflow-Devs, >>> > > >>> > > AIP-69 has come as MVP to the front-door of the repo in form of 3 >>> PRs. But >>> > > as in the Voting there has been a bit of discussion about how we call >>> that >>> > > "baby" I'd like to have a wrap-up about the name and see what the >>> majority >>> > > is for. >>> > > >>> > > The AIP-69 defined the implementation as "Remote Executor" but the >>> exact >>> > > term is used in the Airflow docs today for all non-local executors. It >>> > > might be short but could lead to confusion. >>> > > >>> > > I'd like to ask for a 48h collection of opinions about the options: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > 1. keep it as "Remote Executor" (and adjust the docs to name all >>> > > non-local executors to be "distributed") >>> > > 2. use "Distributed Executor" as provider and tool name, docs cli >>> etc >>> > > for AIP-69 >>> > > 3. Throw in other ideas of names >>> > > >>> > > This is not a formal vote but please respond with +1/0/-1 >>> > > binding/non-binding until Aug 29th 2024 4PM CEST. >>> > > >>> > > My opinion is: >>> > > A: +1 binding as it is short and was the original name with the AIP >>> posted. >>> > > B: 0 binding - can live with this if majority likes it >>> > > C: no better ideas that I can bring up. HTTP is too technical. A funny >>> > > name could be "AnyWhere" but nobody will understand. >>> > > >>> > > Jens >>> > > >>> > > PS: besides the naming looking forward for CODE reviews/approvers in >>> PRs >>> > > #41729,41730,41731 😀 >>> > > >>> > > Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >>> >>>
