Thanks for the note, Sumit. Based on the feedback, I've drafted an AIP that is now up for review. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-109+DAG+Version+Pinning
Would like to get the community's feedback on the same. Nathan, I remember seeing your work (the issue and an older PR) while reviewing all ongoing work related to DAG versions. I agree with the PR's intent, although I haven't reviewed it yet. I understand your PR makes the version-pinned execution behavior of reruns and backfills configurable. However, this discussion revolves around the behavior for new runs only. We need the capability to pin a DAG to a specific version for future runs instead. Hope that clarifies. Regards, Piyush On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 5:11 PM Nathan Hadfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I saw AIP-109 that was created in relation to this discussion and thought > I’d better mention this PR that I’ve been working on for a while and is > close to being approved. > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/63884 > > It is very much related to the motivations described and implements the > desire for control over the behaviour when clearing/backfilling runs. > > Happy to discuss best steps for this here or on the PR. > > Cheers, > > Nathan > > From: Przemysław Mirowski <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, 28 April 2026 at 21:54 > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment Gating (Building > on AIP-63) > > This Message Is From an External Sender > This message came from outside your organization. > > > > P.S. In my opinion, what can be done in/around git, should be done > there. Recreation of CI/CD in any form inside of Airflow itself is > something which should not be done. > > I'm glad we agree on this :) I suppose we just disagree on what is > possible outside of Airflow :p > > I think that we just disagree on what the issue is, not on what is > possible/should be outside of Airflow. > > > I think we are trying to duplicate what we already have in Git. > > Not really if we are only referring to version pinning. As far as I am > aware of how things are working, there is no possibility to determine that > Dag after e.g. deployment on 1:00:00 PM will be exactly parsed and used > since 1:01:00 PM forward. Basically, what version pinning would provide is > the full control of the time since the given version will be used > (currently we can only have more-or-less timing which in some cases, is not > sufficient). The "quick revert" is the consequence of having above > possibility. > > Looking at the general concerns, with having that feature or not, users > can pretty easily test things on production, but it just requires more time > between iterations without it. IMHO it will not change the need for > Airflow-related platform teams which makes sure, by standards/policies, > that things are properly tested before production deployment. I think that > assumption that some users will misuse this feature is true (like with most > of the features really), but on the other hand it would provide more > control for other users. The other solution possibly would be to make Dag > Processor work more on "events" instead of "simple" parsing loop (I recall > that there was some PR couple years ago with PoC of that, but I couldn't > quickly find it). > > ________________________________ > From: Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > Sent: 28 April 2026 17:02 > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment Gating (Building > on AIP-63) > > Same concerns. I think we are trying to duplicate what we already have in > Git—branches and reverts, for example—by moving what should be managed as > part of the development process to Airflow UI. > > Almost everything you describe can be done with: > > * having a dev/staging system configured properly to use dev/staging > branches > * Having a process of managing development and a proper branching strategy > * single git command (for example, `git revert XXXX` followed by push to > the right branch) > > J. > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 10:34 AM Pierre Jeambrun <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > At first glance I tend to agree with Jens and Niko. > > > > I understand the request, but I agree that this resolves CI/CD and > testing > > issues that should probably be remain outside Airflow. > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 7:43 PM Oliveira, Niko <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hey folks! > > > > > > > P.S. In my opinion, what can be done in/around git, should be done > > > there. Recreation of CI/CD in any form inside of Airflow itself is > > > something which should not be done. > > > > > > I'm glad we agree on this :) I suppose we just disagree on what is > > > possible outside of Airflow :p > > > > > > But at this point I will bow out of the conversation and let others > weigh > > > in. I'm not fully convinced any of these requested behaviours require > > > changes to Airflow (I think that's just masking some dev ops work). But > > > also I'm not completely opposed to the change either, I'm more on the > > > fence, so if others love the feature by all means implement it! :) > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Niko > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Przemysław Mirowski <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 3:06 PM > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment Gating > > > (Building on AIP-63) > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I think that CI/CD and version pining are a little two different things > > > here. In a use cases with some critical systems involved, the situation > > > when the Dag changes the version to the latest without possibility to > > > determine when it will exactly happen (CI/CD will have some > more-or-less > > > time to deploy the change, the same goes for Dag Processor parsing > time) > > is > > > rather hard to do and in some systems it can make change deployment > > harder > > > and less safe. Of course, the ideal solution would be to have proper > > > non-prod environment, which is fully representative in comparison to > > > production (in some cases exposing non-prod to prod data/traffic/etc. > is, > > > just, not an option - e.g. security), but it is not always possible to > do > > > due to various reasons like costs, licenses, space and/or vendors. I'm > > > agreeing especially with point 5 of Piyush latest message. Having above > > in > > > mind, I think that version pinning would be a nice addition to the Dag > > > Versioning feature with an assumption that it is for critical Airflow > > Dags > > > when full control of the Dags version change time is required (maybe > > there > > > is also another way to achieve that). > > > > > > P.S. In my opinion, what can be done in/around git, should be done > there. > > > Recreation of CI/CD in any form inside of Airflow itself is something > > which > > > should not be done. > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Oliveira, Niko <[email protected]> > > > Sent: 23 April 2026 01:50 > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment Gating > > (Building > > > on AIP-63) > > > > > > Hey Piyush, > > > > > > Thanks for your reply, I do love how clearly it is written and I see > > > exactly the problem you're trying to solve! > > > > > > I'm still just not convinced this needs to be done in Airflow, at least > > > not with a first class feature. As interesting as I think your > > microservice > > > analogy is, Airflow is not a microservice component, it is a (very, > very) > > > fancy cron scheduler. And I'm not sure the complexity is worth the use > > > case. Since any new code added to Airflow must be maintained by this > > > community and we must be cautious that any new pieces serves enough use > > > cases/users to make it worth it. > > > To me this should either be managed outside of an individual Airflow > > > environment e.g. you have an entirely separate staging/gamma/dev > Airflow > > > environment, which is exposed to some level of production traffic (to > > > borrow your microservice analogy) until it can graduate to the > production > > > environment. And if you really need on the fly toggling of a version, > as > > > you say, Airflow does this quite responsively, if you deploy a new > > version > > > of your dags it will parse and start using that new version immediately > > > (the problem you're trying to solve can be a benefit here). You can > even > > > have multiple versions of your dags deployed at once and use > > configuration > > > to control which dag directory Airflow reads from (or move/symlink Dags > > in > > > and out of the Dags directory as needed from a known good or pinned > > > source). Or use variables or some other parameter store to control > other > > > pieces of runtime behaviour inside the Dags themselves. Between CI/CD, > > dev > > > ops and making use of existing Airflow primitives I think you can > achieve > > > what you're looking for. > > > > > > But as always, this is open and community based software, so I'm happy > to > > > disagree and commit if the rest of the community thinks this is a > > valuable > > > feature :) > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Niko > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Piyush Maheshwari <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 10:46 PM > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment Gating > > > (Building on AIP-63) > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ephraim, Jarek, Jens, and Niko, > > > > > > Thank you for the candid feedback. I want to clarify a few things, as I > > > completely agree with Jens and Niko that "testing in production" is an > > > anti-pattern. That is absolutely not the intention here. > > > > > > 1. I view this as bringing standard microservice-like deployment > maturity > > > to DAGs. > > > Before service deployments in our org, code is tested locally, in a dev > > > environment, and via strict unit/e2e integration tests before it ever > > makes > > > it to main. But even after merging and passing those CI pipelines, we > > still > > > use load tests, pre-prod soak times, shadow traffic, and gated > production > > > rollouts with automated rollback triggers. Having deployment gates for > > the > > > production environment doesn't mean the pre-merge checks weren't strict > > or > > > that the change wasn't tested beforehand -- it just allows us to place > > > additional safety gates for the code to take effect, exactly like in > the > > > service world. > > > > > > 2. The core issue we are trying to solve is that Airflow currently > > > inseparably links Code Distribution (a file arriving on the > dag-processor > > > and being parsed) with Release Activation (the scheduler executing that > > > code). > > > To extend the microservices analogy, I can think of the DAG processor > > > parsing all files as "building the artifact(s)," while the scheduler > and > > > executor acting on the DAG versions created thereafter as "deploying" > or > > > running the changed code. > > > We simply want to decouple the build from the deployment. This does not > > > mean that the code arriving on the dag-processor will be tested for the > > > first time straight in production. It should've already passed a set of > > > checks in the CI pipeline. > > > > > > 3. It is also worth calling out that Airflow already supports this > > > decoupled behavior at the run level for task re-runs and mid-execution > > DAG > > > version bumps (by pinning the version for the rest of the execution or > > the > > > rerun). We are simply trying to expose this existing capability at the > > DAG > > > level so users can govern which version new scheduled runs are created > > > with. > > > > > > 4. I also agree that Airflow itself should not be aware of our CI/CD > > > pipeline, nor would it manage the deployment orchestration or testing. > > > For our requirements, I just need Airflow to expose APIs to deploy > (pin) > > a > > > DAG version, and to remove the pin (to restore/enable the default > > > "auto-deploy latest" behavior). > > > Beyond that, we intend to use an external release orchestrator that can > > > explicitly tell Airflow when a parsed version is actually allowed to > run. > > > Until that API call is made, the previously pinned version remains > > active. > > > This ensures we don't introduce assumptions or awareness of the > presence > > of > > > any external gating mechanisms to Airflow. > > > Also note that the intention is to keep the default auto-deploy > behavior > > > unless a user (or a system on their behalf) explicitly asks Airflow to > > pin > > > a DAG to a specific version. > > > > > > 5. Most importantly, this feature provides an incident response > > "rollback" > > > behavior. If a bad DAG version slips through CI/CD into production, > > either > > > an on-call engineer or a rollback-trigger (airflow-external) can > > instantly > > > roll back to the previous pinned version via the API/UI to mitigate. > > > Without this, users have to revert the code in Git and wait for the > > entire > > > CI/CD pipeline and file-sync process to run, which is often too slow > > during > > > an outage. > > > > > > 6. Jarek - You are right, database schema changes can be discussed > later. > > > My intention was only to share a very brief summary of how I deemed it > to > > > be technically feasible for early feedback. I did briefly share the > > > high-level use cases ("Safe Deployment Gating" and "Instant Rollbacks") > > in > > > the original mail, but I completely agree that aligning on the UX first > > > would be a good next step. > > > > > > If there are no major remaining concerns after this response, I can > draft > > > and share an AIP to detail the UX, followed by a high-level proposal, > > > caveats and next steps. > > > > > > Thanks for your time. > > > Regards, > > > Piyush > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 5:59 PM Oliveira, Niko <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I am with Jens on this one. I think we're complicating Airflow to get > > > > around a bad practice. If stability of your Dags is critical and they > > are > > > > highly versioned then I think as Jens suggested running them through > a > > > > pipeline that first deploys them to a dev or gamma environment which > > > > verifies that quality of the Dags is what you expect. If something > > slips > > > > through, then it's just normal software practices of either reverting > > and > > > > rolling back or rolling forward with a fix pushed through the > > pipeline. I > > > > don't think Airflow should be aware of that process or opinionated > > about > > > it. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Niko > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > *From:* Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> > > > > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2026 11:17 AM > > > > *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > *Subject:* RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] DAG Version Pinning for Deployment > > Gating > > > > (Building on AIP-63) > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I am still quite sceptical. Yes, if such pinning is made, then per > Dag > > a > > > > change need to be possible via UI and API. But I still see it as > > > > checken-and-egg - so you want to run a pinned version but then how do > > > > you test the changes (w/o moving a version pin)? Then again some test > > > > mode is needed or per run you need to make a "test run" with another > > > > version. Smells a bit like mis-using a production system for testing. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, yes if all Dags share the same Git repo then > merging > > > > a branch to some other will switch all Dags at the same time. Still > you > > > > could utilize standard Git tools and cherry-pick individual changes > and > > > > no force to always make a full rollout. At least 80% possible with > > > > standard CI/CD tools and Git. > > > > > > > > TLDR I see the danger that instead of a proper CI/CD and test system > > > > such a feature might feel like you can easily test on a production > > > > system. Effectively it would be needed allowing to start a Dag with > any > > > > version to also be able to jump back as a reversion. Even though, > yes, > > > > agree, all is technically possible. > > > > > > > > Jens > > > > > > > > On 20.04.26 16:40, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > > > +1 to what Ephraim wrote. I think that was a natural next step we > > > > > discussed, but it needs significant refinement, starting with the > > > actual > > > > > use cases it should serve and the UX for user interaction. I think > > > > related > > > > > database changes are pretty secondary. Use cases cover runs, > re-runs, > > > > > backfills, CI testing, rollbacks, etc. Following the "documentation > > > > first" > > > > > approach discussed in separate thread, describing the context and > > > > intention > > > > > of what we want to achieve is much more important than DB schema > > > changes. > > > > > Once we know which use cases we want to serve, the DB schema > changes > > > and > > > > > other related items will emerge naturally. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 3:15 PM Ephraim Anierobi < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Piyush, thanks for starting this discussion. > > > > >> > > > > >> I like the proposal. We can introduce an active execution version > > for > > > > >> "versioned bundles" and make scheduler/API resolve through it. The > > > hard > > > > >> part of this is making airflow able to distinguish the latest > parsed > > > > >> dagmodel's metadata from active scheduling metadata. I will > suggest > > > you > > > > >> draft this in a google docs and share for further discussions. > > > > >> > > > > >> Regards > > > > >> - Ephraim > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 at 01:31, Piyush Maheshwari < > > > [email protected]> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts Jens. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> be able to test it? … a Q&A/Testing environment to be able to > > > sign-off > > > > >>> changes. > > > > >>> Yes, we’ve have built an isolated airflow environment to run > > > regression > > > > >>> checks before promoting to production. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> As you suggested, we’re already running both generic and > DAG-custom > > > > >> static > > > > >>> checks in a CI job as a required step to merge to the main > branch. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> But then the "main" branch might be best suited if > > > > >>> implemented on the test system > > > > >>> In this case, problematic commits on “main” can choke other > > unrelated > > > > >>> changes. > > > > >>> So the other option would be to revert the problematic commits > and > > > > deploy > > > > >>> forward. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> However, a key limitation with this approach that remains is > that a > > > > >> commit > > > > >>> affecting multiple DAGs goes live for either all DAGs or none. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Second important feature we get with this is instant DAG-level > > > rollback > > > > >>> without waiting for a revert commit to merge and be picked by > > > airflow. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I think DAG-level version pinning can also unlock a lot of > > > flexibility > > > > >> for > > > > >>> deployments including tiered rollouts, auto-rollback triggers, > > timed > > > > >>> deployment windows and so on. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Looking forward to hear your thoughts. > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > >>> Piyush > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 at 3:12 PM, Jens Scheffler < > > [email protected]> > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Thanks Piyush for dropping the discussion! > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I think in general QA processes are important and a valid use > > case. > > > So > > > > >> a > > > > >>>> kind of pinning Dag versions really is important. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Thinking about it, if you pin the version ... how would you then > > be > > > > >> able > > > > >>>> to test it? I assume you would need (and should have or invest > > > into) a > > > > >>>> Q&A/Testing environment to be able to sign-off changes. Both in > > > > >>>> infrastructure but also for Dag changes. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> If you are changing Dags first of all static checks on Dag code > > are > > > > >> very > > > > >>>> much proposed as well as you can have tests implemented and test > > > your > > > > >>>> Dags and logic. Similar like software a CI/CD system will be a > > good > > > > >>>> setup. Alongside Dag changes also have logical changes that > mostly > > > can > > > > >>>> only be tested in a live system and not as static checks. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Have you considered using Git and a set of branches for > > implementing > > > > >>>> such staging? E.g. you have a git repo and you plan to make > > changes. > > > > >>>> Then you would open a PR for the change and merge it to the > "main" > > > > >>>> branch - and there in your CI/CD you can check all sorts of > static > > > > >>>> checks and tests. But then the "main" branch might be best > suited > > if > > > > >>>> implemented on the test system. Once you validate the changes > > > > >> end-to-end > > > > >>>> you could make another PR for example to a "prod" branch. And if > > > your > > > > >>>> production system is only pulling Dags from the "prod" branch > then > > > you > > > > >>>> can have this merging strategy as a staging setup. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Would this resolve your PING problem? Or which other detail in > the > > > use > > > > >>>> case would require a PIN on top of a staging strategy? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Jens > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> P.S.: Have enabled your confluence account after it was created > in > > > > >> order > > > > >>>> to write to Confluence, sorry, typical pitfall after account > > > creation > > > > >>>> permissions were not set. Now it should work. Let me know if > not. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On 19.04.26 01:40, Piyush Maheshwari wrote: > > > > >>>>> Hi everyone, > > > > >>>>> I'm a new contributor to Airflow. I'd like to propose a new > > feature > > > > >> for > > > > >>>> Airflow: DAG Version Pinning. > > > > >>>>> Building on the foundation introduced by AIP-63: DAG > Versioning ( > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-63*3A*DAG*Versioning__;JSsr!!Ci6f514n9QsL8ck!l3ZKTOw996h9qu4NR0VT4ouUryUdk_HmXUAVPbwCHwPwn0N2CCptVdx95-V0BoRFjws9huE_1Vy-THL8jw$ > > > > >>> ), > > > > >>>> this proposal aims to extend Airflow's capabilities to support > > true > > > > >>>> continuous deployment (CD) gating and safer release cycles. > > > > >>>>> The Problem & Use Cases > > > > >>>>> Currently, the scheduler always creates DagRuns using the > latest > > > > >> parsed > > > > >>>> DagVersion. This means that the updated DAG code is deployed > > (takes > > > > >>> effect) > > > > >>>> right after the dag-processor processes it. While this is great > > for > > > > >> rapid > > > > >>>> development, teams running business-critical pipelines often > need > > > > >>> stricter > > > > >>>> deployment mechanisms. Specifically: > > > > >>>>> * > > > > >>>>> Safe Deployment Gating: The ability to pin a DAG to its last > > known > > > > >>>> stable version while new code is parsed in the background. This > > > allows > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>> new version to be held back until it passes automated regression > > > tests > > > > >> or > > > > >>>> receives explicit manual approval. > > > > >>>>> * > > > > >>>>> Instant Rollbacks: If an issue is detected in a newly promoted > > DAG > > > > >>>> version, users need the capability to instantly roll back to a > > > > previous > > > > >>>> version via the UI/API, without having to revert the underlying > > code > > > > >> and > > > > >>>> wait for the repository sync and DAG processing cycle. > > > > >>>>> High-Level Proposed Solution > > > > >>>>> Introduce an optional active_dag_version_id to the DagModel. > This > > > > >> field > > > > >>>> can be used to pin a DAG version for scheduling and execution, > > while > > > > >> the > > > > >>>> dag-processor can continue to parse and register newer DAG > > versions. > > > > >>>>> * > > > > >>>>> When this pin is set, the scheduler and API will respect the > > pinned > > > > >>>> version for creating runs and executing tasks, separating the > > > parsing > > > > >> of > > > > >>>> new code from the execution of new code. > > > > >>>>> * > > > > >>>>> If the pin is NULL, the system defaults to the current behavior > > > > >> (always > > > > >>>> executing the latest parsed version). This way, we can maintain > > > > >> complete > > > > >>>> backwards compatibility. > > > > >>>>> I have put together some detailed notes covering the data model > > > > >>> changes, > > > > >>>> database migrations, and edge cases with this approach. If there > > is > > > > >>> general > > > > >>>> alignment that this fits the vision for Airflow, I would like to > > > take > > > > >>> this > > > > >>>> proposal through the formal AIP review process. > > > > >>>>> But I would love to get the community's feedback on the feature > > and > > > > >> the > > > > >>>> high-level approach. > > > > >>>>> I'll also need someone to grant me access to create content on > > the > > > > >>>> Airflow Confluence wiki. > > > > >>>>> Thanks for your time! > > > > >>>>> Regards, > > > > >>>>> Piyush > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
