Re: [DISCUSS] Add Ansible Provider

Hey Zheng liu, Can you please subscribe to the devlist? We keep on moderating your message because the email you are using to send messages to the devlist is not subscribed to it - you can see how to subscribe in https://airflow.apache.org/community/. Also you might not see responses as messages s

[REMINDER]: Airflow 3 Dev call on 9th January - agenda

Hi everyone, Here is a quick reminder that we have our Airflow 3 dev call the day after tomorrow at Thursday, 9th January 2025 at 8AM PST (11 am EST | 4 pm UTC / GMT). Proposed agenda: 1. Check in on action items from the last call - AIP-83 amendment aka Data completeness discussion follow-up (Da

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Moving Providers to separate sub-projects soon-ish

I think it will be better to keep it. The reason we have varying levels were to group things together - mainly Apache related providers, but also Microsoft. And we already have a number of mappings and conventions to handle that. For example provider I'd mapping to dirs (apache.beam -> apache/bea

Re: [DISCUSS] Add Ansible Provider

Some rules and regulations, such as package name. To make the package awesome and classic. I will provide more use cases later. -- Zheng Liu http://liuzheng.github.com zheng liu 于2025年1月4日周六 19:19写道： > Hi >

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Moving Providers to separate sub-projects soon-ish

Good question. I always found it confusing to have some providers at different level. Examples: - "airbyte" in "providers" directory (I would qualify it as "regular" provider) - "hive" in "providers/apache" - "amazon" in "providers" but which contains only one sub directory "aws" I would be in fa

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Moving Providers to separate sub-projects soon-ish

+1 one to this on general terms, it will hopefully reduce a lot of the boilerplate we need. As for the amazon/aws example specifically that does bring up a question, should we have `/` or `-`.. to give some examples: cncf kubernetes: ./providers/cncf/kubernetes or ./providers/cncf-kubernetes Ap

Re: [DISCUSS] removal of uniqueness in airflow and partition-driven dag style

OK just an update. Recall the document outlining options was created AIP-83 amendment to support classic Airflow authoring style . >From discussions on that page, it seemed that some variant of option 2 has the strongest support. Accordingly, I have