So I think what David really needs (from you Daniel and others) if is the idaa sounds right, if it does and we agree it is something that should be clarified in detail and there are no major blockers to move in this direction - this can be turned into detailed proposal with the syntax,
I think we had a long story of some cases (like SLA) where we asked for detailed AIPs and then after it has been delivered it turned out that the idea from the very beginning was not right, but this feedback has been missing. SLA feature sufferred from late feedback that "the whole idea seems wrong". I think we should avoid such an approach. If we see that the general idea is wrong we should give early feedback - and then engage in detailed discussion - but without the "I have not paid attention before but the whole thing is wrong". I think David is looking for this kind of confirmation, so that he does not spend days and weeks on detailing a proposal then was strangled to death because we did not like the idea in the first place. That's very discouraging. J, On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 6:00 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > It's about the same David's proposal is about stream syntax to run the > operators in the task. So those are not two things - this is the "idea" > (run operators in a loop in a task) and implementation detail (stream > syntax). > > I think at this stage I distilled the idea from the syntax proposal, and > what we could do in the future is to make sure that syntax is good. > > > J. > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 4:11 PM Daniel Standish > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > >> I'm still a bit fuzzy on the proposal. It also seems at times like you >> two >> (David and Jarek) are sorta talking about two different things. David: >> "stream" syntax. Jarek: run operator in a task. >> >> I would suggest @David maybe just produce a sort of draft AIP maybe in >> google docs or something and share and interested parties can review and >> understand better and possibly help shape the direction. >> >
