Following the question of the user here: https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CCQ7EGB1P/p1746442613931879?thread_ts=1746430604.330269&cid=CCQ7EGB1P
The user asked which package they can install to be able to do "from airflow.sdk import Variable". Turns out they are on Airflow 2. I think the user got quite confused about task.sdk and "from airflow.sdk" because this is what they **might** see in our docs without realising it's for Airflow 3 rather than Airflow 2. I wonder how we should communicate stuff now in the transition period in our docs and what we should tell our users. Should we tell them to use: 1. from airflow.models Import Variables or 2. from airflow.sdk import Variables The first one allows migration from Airflow 2. And no-one will switch to `from airlfow.sdk` before they migrate unless we will make task.sdk possible to be installed in Airflow 2 (it can't be currently). The bad thing is that even Airflow 3 docs have a mixture of those. There are many places where we still use "from airflow.models" and a number of places where we already say "from airflow.sdk" and that can be - I think - terribly confusing for users who are still using Airflow 2 (it will work both ways for Airflow 3 of course, so people are likely to end up with mixture of those as well - depending from where they are copy&pasting stuff. Few questions: 1) Do we care about consistency (especially now)? 2) If we do - do we suggest users to make bulk replacement of "from airflow.models" from `from airflow.sdk` after they migrate? Otherwise the result will be - inevitably - a mixture of those. 3) Or maybe we should come up with a way to install something (or even have it in airflow 2.11) to be able to switch to `from airflow.sdk` in Airflow 2. 4) If not 3 (or even independently from 3) - should we have some way in airflow 3 docs to indicate that this is Airflow 3 syntax-only and that they should use "from airflow.models" in Airflow 2 to avoid similar confusion as the slack user had? Were there any thoughts and discussion about it before? Maybe I missed it? J.
