Re: [DISCUSS] AIP-76 Asset Partitions

Thanks TP, I left a bunch of comments in the AIP doc. But overall, this looks really good Vikram On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 2:23 PM Kaxil Naik wrote: > For example: Partitioning the Data: > > @asset(..., schedule="@daily", partition=PartitionByInternal("@daily")) > def daily_sales_data(): > ..

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] Add the Microsoft Fabric Provider in Apache Airflow

Hi Dennis, Thank you for your suggestion. We are going to add the Fabric Provider within the Microsoft Providers only, maintaining the same hierarchy as the existing ones like microsoft.azure, microsoft.mssql, microsoft.psrp, and microsoft.winrm. This will ensure a consistent and intuitive structu

Re: [DISCUSS] Extendable parsing controls (a.k.a. Pluggable Parsers)

Hi Igor, I have added permissions to your cWiki username: ikholopov I am interested in this topic but my feedback will be a bit delayed since I am focussing on reviewing 3.0 items first. Regards, Kaxil On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 15:09, Igor Kholopov wrote: > Hi all, > > I've prepared a proposal o

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] AIP-78 Scheduler-managed backfills

Votes: +1 (binding): 7 +1 (non-binding): 2 No -1 votes On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 00:04, Kaxil Naik wrote: > The vote for AIP-78 has passed. > > Binding +1 votes: > - Kaxil Naik > - Jens Scheffler > - Jarek Potiuk > - Vincent Beck > - Vikram Koka > - Daniel Standish > - Jed Cunningham > > > Non-bi

[RESULT][VOTE] AIP-78 Scheduler-managed backfills

The vote for AIP-78 has passed. Binding +1 votes: - Kaxil Naik - Jens Scheffler - Jarek Potiuk - Vincent Beck - Vikram Koka - Daniel Standish - Jed Cunningham Non-binding votes: - Eugen Kosteev - Igor Kholopov AIP-78 link: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/0Q_TEg Discussion thread https://

Re: [VOTE] AIP-78 Scheduler-managed backfills

This vote has concluded, will summarize it in the separate thread, thanks for voting. On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 21:27, Jed Cunningham wrote: > +1 binding >

Re: [VOTE] AIP-68 Extended Plugin Interface for React Views

+1 binding On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 12:31 PM Vikram Koka wrote: > > +1 binding > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 11:44 PM Shahar Epstein wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > On 2024/07/26 16:01:21 "Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)" wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Brent and me have revised the AIP-68 ba

Re: [VOTE] AIP-68 Extended Plugin Interface for React Views

+1 binding

Re: [VOTE] AIP-78 Scheduler-managed backfills

+1 binding

Re: [VOTE] AIP-78 Scheduler-managed backfills

+1 binding On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 7:55 AM Vikram Koka wrote: > +1 binding > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 7:36 AM Eugen Kosteev wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 4:17 PM Vincent Beck > wrote: > > > > > I am all in for simplification! +1 binding > > > > > > On 2024/07/2

Re: [DISCUSSION] AIP-83 Remove Execution Date Unique Constraint from DAG Run

For info, the same topic was discussed in this thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/p722zobyj8sv9vtc92pxg99wobr3blfc, thanks for re-raising it again, I will review the AIP soon. On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 9:44 PM Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) wrote: > I like the voting attitude. Vound my +1 o

Re: [DISCUSSION] AIP-83 Remove Execution Date Unique Constraint from DAG Run

I like the voting attitude. Vound my +1 once you start voting 😀 Sent from Outlook for iOS From: Tzu-ping Chung Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 9:19:02 AM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] AIP-83 Remove Execution Date Unique

Re: [VOTE] AIP-68 Extended Plugin Interface for React Views

+1 binding On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 11:44 PM Shahar Epstein wrote: > +1 (binding) > > > On 2024/07/26 16:01:21 "Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)" wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Brent and me have revised the AIP-68 based on the other Airflow 3.x > discussions we had and as no further discussions are open

Re: [DISCUSS] External event driven scheduling in Airflow

Hi everyone, I updated the AIP-82 given the different comments and concerns I received. I also tried to reply to all comments individually. I would really appreciate if you can do a second pass and let me know what you think. Overall, this is what I changed in the AIP: - Push based event-drive

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] Add the Microsoft Fabric Provider in Apache Airflow

> I think Dennis had a question about that too: Should it be a separate > provider or part of MS Azure Provider? I kinda deferred my question given the direction the thread took, but thanks for the callback. If this does end up happening, I was just going to suggest that rather than an entirel

Re: [DISCUSS] AIP-67 Multi-team deployment of Airflow components (reloaded)

Hey Daniel, > This is not a veto threat, but just expressing concern, I remain a bit skeptical of multitenancy for a few reasons. Just to bring it back to the right track - this is not a multitenancy, really. It's multi-team. We've been going over that topic and I started to like the "team" appro

Re: [DISCUSS] AIP-67 Multi-team deployment of Airflow components (reloaded)

This is not a veto threat, but just expressing concern, I remain a bit skeptical of multitenancy for a few reasons. 1. a lot of complexity will be introduced. 2. it's already not terribly uncommon that airflow users find scheduler performance / concurrency insufficient and this would tend to make

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] Add the Microsoft Fabric Provider in Apache Airflow

Absolutely, will drop you a separate email about it. As you may understand, Microsoft is a huge organization. In that context, > we are from the Microsoft Fabric group, which is a different group and > product from Azure. We are committed to supporting and adding dashboards > for Microsoft Fabric

Re: [DISCUSSION] AIP-83 Remove Execution Date Unique Constraint from DAG Run

Sorry TP, that was my mistake. I started the "vote responses" :) You can count my response as a real vote when you start the voting thread. On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 12:19 AM Tzu-ping Chung wrote: > Hey folks just a heads up this is NOT a voting thread :p > > I’ll count the existing replies towa

[DISCUSS] Extendable parsing controls (a.k.a. Pluggable Parsers)

Hi all, I've prepared a proposal of the AIP aiming to increase the flexibility and structure up the DAG processing/ingestion in Airflow 3.0+. This proposal largely builds on the accepted AIP-66 & AIP-72. It strives to unblock paths for faster development in remote environments, precise control of

Re: [DISCUSSION] AIP-83 Remove Execution Date Unique Constraint from DAG Run

Hey folks just a heads up this is NOT a voting thread :p I’ll count the existing replies toward real votes when the thread is posted. Drop a word if I shouldn’t. TP > On 30 Jul 2024, at 11:40, Phani Kumar > wrote: > > +1 binding > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 8:45 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote: > >