> I believe we should better document the decision this time. Hate to be That Guy, but what about (yet another) prek rule to enforce it?
- ferruzzi ________________________________ From: Kyungjun Lee <kyungjunlee...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 5:46 PM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] dag vs DAG vs Dag 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. This may be a slightly different topic from the current discussion, but I hope it’s okay to ask here. Are there any ongoing or planned discussions within the community about extending the concept of DAGs beyond the traditional “task dependency graph” definition — for example, toward dataflow graphs, event-driven DAGs, or asset-based workflows? 2025년 9월 2일 (화) 오후 8:53, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>님이 작성: > > “If you name it, you can own it > > Yep. 100%. Precisely what Ash wrote. I am actually quite happy that many > people say "this is something that is not correct". In a way it makes it a > perfect candidate to pick someone we can "own" - because nobody owns it yet > in the minds of people. > The fact that we feel uncomfortable about it "now" is exactly the reason > why we should choose it. > Mostly because this is something that we claim "ownership" of - and (as > with everything) we will get used to it over time and we will start > treating it as ours if we accept it as "our" term. > > J. > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 11:38 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > “If you name it, you can own it” > > > > +1 for Dag, it can be an airflow term, much more so than DAG as an > acronym > > can be. > > > > > On 2 Sep 2025, at 08:03, Ankit Chaurasia <sunank...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I totally agree that "Dag" - it is neither a proper class nor a proper > > > variable naming pattern. > > > > > > "DAG" can be used when referring directly to the class. > > > > > > "dag" makes the most sense as it aligns with Python’s snake_case for > > > identifiers. > > > > > > *Ankit Chaurasia* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 11:23 PM Sumit Maheshwari < > sumeet.ma...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> 100% agree with Daniel. "Dag" seems to be the worst choice out of all > > >> options. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 10:54 PM Daniel Standish > > >> <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I 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. > > >>> > > >>> I would just use dag most of the time and DAG when you need to refer > > >>> unambiguously to the actual class. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 3:46 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I don't think we concluded whether we should use "Dag" or "dag" - > but > > >> I > > >>>> think the important goal of why we decided on dropping the "DAG" as > > >>> acronym > > >>>> was that we want to really start "owning" the "Dag" term - "Dag" > > really > > >>>> meaning "Airflow Workflow". > > >>>> I think using capitalized form "Dag" fulfills that goal better than > > >>> "dag". > > >>>> > > >>>> J. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 5:09 PM Pierre Jeambrun < > > pierrejb...@gmail.com > > >>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Response thread there. Can’t remember the full outcome from the top > > >> of > > >>> my > > >>>>> head but “Dag, dag, dags” seems fine, preferably for doc, new code, > > >>> user > > >>>>> facing, but not worth the trouble going through the whole codebase > > >> for > > >>>>> refactoring. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/8k338stlkkp07ko3no70p2nng757kd1w > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Sun 31 Aug 2025 at 17:01, Wei Lee <weilee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I think our previous consensus was “dag" or “dags", but recent > PRs, > > >>>>>> including mine, have changed them to "Dag". I’m fine with "Dag" or > > >>>> “dag” > > >>>>>> (like “dag” a bit more) as long as it’s not “DAG”. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I believe we should better document the decision this time. I can > > >>>> create > > >>>>>> that PR once we finalize it again here. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>> Wei > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2025, at 9:13 PM, Daniel Standish > > >>>>>> <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.INVALID> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Saw this PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/55097 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I thought we discussed this at some point that using just "dag" > > >> or > > >>>>> "dags" > > >>>>>>> is perfectly fine. De-emphasizing the mathy origin of the "DAG" > > >>>>> concept. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Personally I believe we should leave instances of "dag" or "dags" > > >>> in > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> docs alone. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Is the consensus I recall just an invention of my mind? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > > > >
