Summarize what we have gathered so far (please let me know if i misunderstood
anything)
* As long as it's not DAG
* Wei
* Pierre
* Dag
* Jarek
* Ash
* dag
* Daniel
* Sumit
* Ankit
There might not be a straightforward prek hook as we'll encounter numerous
exceptions during mentioning the class DAG in the documentation. However, we
can at least include this conclusion in
https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/05_pull_requests.rst
> On Sep 4, 2025, at 7:51 AM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
>> First we must arrive at something approaching consensus, which it seems
> we have not ;)
>
> Yeah. We can always eventually vote on it if we won't be able to convince
> everyone :). But let me try again.
>
>> sort of don't really understand why we would write Dag. It seems
> kindof the worst of both worlds. That's not what the class is. And it
> doesn't really make sense as a proper noun.
>
> On top of the "owning" argument - actually I think Dag used in a sentence
> is way more correct than dag. PRECISELY because it's not a proper noun
> (dag). `Dag` on the other hand is clearly something that has its own name -
> like the first name of a person that does not have to be a "word". It's
> just a "named entity". It has no relation to class name in the docs, this
> is not the point at all. This is the "concept" we are talking about that
> we "named" and "Capitalizing" it makes perfect sense IMHO.
>
> J.
