Cancelling it. I did not expect objections because it ... seemed obvious to me - but obviously it is not ... :)
I think we can leave it as is - not preinstalled and possibly revisit it in the future, no need to lose time now. I already have a nice way to deal with it for the tests - where - with the new setup / uv only config we can simply add git provider as "development" dependency, no blocker from that part. On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 8:58 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > ok. Then no consensus... Needs discussion then :) > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 8:05 PM Vikram Koka <vik...@astronomer.io.invalid> > wrote: > >> A little stronger than Jed actually and for very similar reasons. >> >> My view is that Airflow 3 is a new foundation and I very much believe that >> there will be multiple, different bundling mechanisms. >> I don't think we should include the "git-provider" as a required >> dependency. >> >> Vikram >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 10:26 AM Jed Cunningham <jedcunning...@apache.org >> > >> wrote: >> >> > I'm slightly against installing by default, actually. Weird from the guy >> > who added bundle versioning huh? But, if I ignore the short term where >> we >> > only have git with bundle versioning, I fully expect there will be more >> > bundle options that support versioning soon, and forcing git into the >> mix >> > just doesn't seem right long term. >> > >> > This is also just 1 aspect of "versioning" - bundle versioning gives you >> > "dag code" consistency across a run, but you get dag versioning >> regardless >> > of your bundle type. It's helpful, yes, and I'd want it for production. >> But >> > not sure it hits the "required" bar. >> > >> >
