Hey everyone,

Thank you for attending the dev call on Thursday. I updated our meeting
notes document in the Airflow 3.x wiki
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+3.x>to capture
the notes. The link for those notes is here
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=373886699#Airflow3.xDevCall:Meetingnotes-Summary.12>

To everyone who attended the meeting, please check the summary and add
anything that I may have missed. For those who could not join, please let
us know if you disagree with anything discussed and agreed upon in
the meeting. Also, please do ask questions if something is unclear.

Our next meeting is scheduled for the 4th of December at the same time. Please
let me know if you would like to add anything to the agenda
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=373886699#Airflow3.xDevCall:Meetingnotes-ProposedAgenda.13>
.

Best regards,
Vikram
--
Below is the summary from the call:

   - Catch-up on action items from last call:
      - Swim lane issue / PR tracking update (Vikram Koka)
         - Vikram shared the output from the automated script he had
         created for tracking all open issues and PRs.
         - Using the 3.0 release date as a starting point, there are 308
         open issues and 325 open PRs.
         - Core Airflow had about 200 open issues out of which the UI and
         API swim lane had a third of all open issues and PRs.
         - Helm Chart had 18 open issues and 14 open PRs.
         - Dev tools (including CI) had a surprisingly high number (34) of
         open PRs.
         - Providers had about a quarter of the overall, but not yet
         classified in detail, because of a script bug.
         - Vikram also added that he would be updating the 3.x page with
         the updated swim lane information including metrics, and the swim lane
         leads.
         - Vikram asked for volunteers to fill out the swim lane leads for
         areas which are backlogged.
         - Jens said that he would take the lead on Helm Chart, after
         chatting with Jed since Jed was now back from leave.
         - Jarek suggested that "draft PRs" be excluded from the counts.
         - Shahar asked about more detailed labels and leveraging the issue
         bot, but Vikram said that the issue bot was currently often wrong,
         requiring manual re-tagging.
      - Development Updates and Presentations:
      - Airflow 3.1.x patch release update (Ephraim Anierobi)
         - Ephraim said that Core Airflow 3.1.3 was released last week
         - Ephraim added that 3.1.4 was planned for the first week of
         December, adding that it was originally targeted for a week
earlier, but
         wanted to avoid Good Friday week.
         - Jarek added that this was likely the last release before
         Christmas / New Year.
         - Bugra added that airflowctl patch release dependencies were
         being resolved and that a new release candidate was being created.
      - UI performance issues (Pierre / Brent)
         - Pierre said that the N+1 query issues were resolved and that the
         fixes were released as part of 3.1.3
         - Pierre went on to say that the next priorities included adding
         missing indexes for sorting/filtering and that these needed to be
         configurable since the criteria could be different across user
         organizations.
         - Brent added that additional work would be needed for View
         specific enhancements, such as Grid View performance enhancements.
         - There was also a question raised about documenting guidance for
         the deployment of API servers for scale.
      - AI-generated PR management strategy
         - Vikram asked the question for the UI team about how many of the
         generated PRs (since the UI had the largest number of PR
contributions)
         were AI-generated and if there were any quality issues
         - Brent responded that the PRs ranged from AI-assisted good PRs to
         very low-effort PRs which hadn't had enough thought behind them.
         - Pierre said that his approach was to match the review effort to
         the contribution effort i.e. spend very little time reviewing
low-effort
         PRs and just give high level feedback for obviously
AI-generated PRs, so
         that time wasn't wasted.
         - Overall the team felt that they were spending a disproportionate
         amount of time reviewing poor quality PRs.
         - Jarek said that ASF suggests (but does not mandate) disclosure
         of LLM usage in contributions
         - This led to a discussion on needing to update the contributing
         guide to reflect expectations on AI usage in the PR creation
process. Ash
         took that action item to update the contributing guide.
      - Discussion topics:
   - Why more providers needed ? (Jarek Potiuk)
         - Jarek raised the challenge of increasing provider breadth, by
         saying that despite incoming requests for additional
providers and people
         willing to contribute providers, we were limited by
maintainer capacity.
         Jarek said that he had collaborated on a proposal with Vikram
and others
         and would like to see this proposal move forward.
         - Vikram described the proposal for new providers as follows:
            - An Incubation step for new providers, then proceeding to
            "mainstream / production, and then to "attic /
deprecation" if no longer
            being used
            - Contributors would need to take ownership responsibility for
            maintenance.
            - Similar to the issue / PR metrics for core Airflow above, we
            would track and publish metrics around open issues, PR
reviews, CVE fixes
            per provider
            - Special case handling for mature, stable providers such as
            Slack.
            - This process would be similar to how we handle translations
            with Shahar leading translations as a committer, but with
individuals
            taking ownership for the actual creation and maintenance.
            - We would continue to have only Apache Airflow committers as
            people who can merge, similar to translations.
         - Radu (from Vespa) said that they wished to contribute a Provider
         to Airflow. Radu went on to say that the shared ownership
model described
         earlier would be mutually beneficial and that they would be
incentivized to
         maintain their contribution, so that their users have a good experience
         - Vikram to update the AIP and send out a follow-up to the dev list
      - Multi-team to be aimed for 3.2 or 3.3 release (Vincent Beck / Niko)
         - Vincent wasn't at the meeting, but Niko chimed to say that they
         would like to target portions of the multi-team AIP for 3.2,
with other
         elements following on in 3.3.
         - Vikram asked about the status of the Deadline Alerts AIP, and
         Niko said that the remainder of the Notifier improvements
were planned for
         3.2
         - There will be a significant portion of the next dev call (on Dec
         4th) dedicated to 3.2 scope planning.



-- 

Vikram Koka
Chief Strategy Officer
Email: [email protected]


<https://www.astronomer.io/>

Reply via email to